Liberals:
Finally, Democrats stopped with the crazy talk and the violent rhetoric. Just kidding.
Democrat Rep Jim Moran: “It [Republican victories in November] happened … for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery. In this case a lot of people in this country, it’s my belief, don’t want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that’s a basic philosophical clash.”
Belknap Democratic Chair Ed Mallard, speaking of Republicans: “They’re going to hang themselves. And we’re going to help them.”
MSNBC Vice President Bill Wolff: “MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that we’re beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous.”
Charles Schumer: “The fact that five senators are for privatizing Social Security shows we’re not crying wolf here. This is a serious movement to undo the most successful government program of the 20th century.”
Danny Glover: “Think about that violence now in relationship to what has happened in Tucson. You know, even though we know that this young man is just deranged in some way, there’s the side that drove him to that act, with the kind of vitriol, the kind of nasty, just villainous violence that is happening. The violence that happened even during, you know, town hall meetings.during the healthcare crisis, the healthcare debate and everything, all this kind of violence. Then you take, again, that, the war, the wars-King talks about that, how that violence-that violence comes home. That violence comes home to haunt us.”
Nancy Pelosi: “President Obama was a job creator from day one.”
Pelosi, with regards to Obama being in the middle: “I think that’s where he’s always been.”
Van Jones: “Here’s how you know if you live in a society where there’s social justice: Would you be willing to take your life . . . write it on a card, throw it in a big pot with everybody else . . . reach in at random and pull out another life with total confidence that it would be a good life?”
Chris Matthews, who regularly beats up on both Palin and Bachmann for supposed in accuracies of quotes he has pulled out of context: “We’re looking at the map of the world right now and where Egypt sits in the world. It’s so strategically located. It has, of course, the Nile River. It has, of course, the Panama Canal.”
Sen. Tom Harkin: “If the people elect these crazy TEA party people, and they come in here and they vote to do all these wacko things, I say, give ‘em rope; give them a lot of rope, then the American people will find out and we will have a real election the next time around.”
President Obama: “Combat operations in Afghanistan have ended.”
Chris Matthews on Michele Bachmann’s TEA party response and why her doing it is a bad idea: “don’t know what to make that. that’s balloon head. we treated slaves as three-fifths of a person. it went to the civil war. we had compromise after compromise to avoid a war. we went to war. slavery continued through the 1860s and only ended because of that war. here’s this woman that you made your spokesperson saying that somehow the founding fathers dealt with it. that’s the one thing they did not deal with. that was the horrible compromise that was at the heart of our constitution. why do you put someone like this forward who is a balloon head? who knows no american history. it’s a ridiculous decision you guys have made. do you know how little this woman knows our history?” By the way, any person who says slaves were treated as three-fifths of a person in the constitution does not know anything about constitutional history. Matthews calls her a balloon-head at least 3 times in this panel “discussion.”
Chris Matthews: “Leading off tonight: Unrest in Egypt. Proving the Iraq war wasn’t needed, these protests in Egypt, as well as in Yemen and Tunisia, are all aimed at dictators supported by the U.S. The demonstrations have not yet turned anti-American, but they could. These are the events the Bush administration hoped to encourage by lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq. A live report from Richard Engel at the scene coming up. And we`ll stay on this story throughout the hour as events warrant.”
Charles Schumer: “We have 3 branches of government: we have a House, we have a Senate, we have a President; and all 3 of us are going to have to come together and give some.”
President Obama: “Health reform is part of deficit reform. We know that health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, are the biggest contributors to our long-term deficit. Nobody disputes this. And this law will slow these costs.”
Phone message left by unknown person for Maine GOP chairman Charlie Webster: “I wonder if Mr. Webster might survive a nine millimeter but doubtful he’d survive a 50 cal. There’s a lot of 50 cals in Maine. He should change his tune because a lot of people are really mad.”
Liberals from the past:
Joseph Stalin: “Life has become better, comrades, life has become merrier!”
Crosstalk:
Tom McClintock: “The two principle promises that were made in support of Obamacare were, (1) it would hold costs down; true or false?”
Chief actuary Richard Foster: [long pause; a nervous laugh, and then he says] “Um, I would say false, more so than true.”
McClintock: “The other promise that…if you like your plan, you can keep it; true or false?”
Foster: “Uh, not true in all cases.”
_______________________________________
CNSNews.com asked Academy Award-winning actor Richard Dreyfus the following: “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said of, has said of Dick Cheney, `he’s an enemy of this country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is an enemy of this country. . Lord, take him to the promised land, will you?’ And there’s been other quotes, specifically in the media. I wanted to get your reaction to that specifically. Is that something that you think should be rejected by a civil society?”
Dreyfuss said, “No, that’s not uncivil. That’s actually kind of a beautifully phrased way of saying something that could be uncivil.”
Conservatives:
Rush Limbaugh: “Why are they granting these Obamacare waivers? I thought this law was a panacea. I thought the president said that if you like your health care coverage, you keep it… Is it only if you have a waiver?”
Sarah Palin on the SOTU address: “And his [Obama’s] theme last night in the Speaker of the House was the ‘WTF,’ you know, ‘Winning the Future.’ And I thought, ‘OK, that acronym, spot on.’ There were a lot of ‘WTF’ moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can’t allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt. That right there tells you he is so disconnected from reality!”
Dennis Miller: “What the hell was Al Sharpton even talking about? It sounded like Professor Irwin Corey explaining the infield fly rule. And, you know, he’s going to get carpal tunnel from flipping the race card on you that many times in one interview.”
Conservative at Luntz focus group, speaking about Obama’s SOTU: “I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is he talking about cutting spending? Are you kidding me? All this guy’s done is, spend, spend, spend. In that clip he says we need to live within our means. What is he talking about?”
Rush: “I’m listening to all this Sputnik business from Obama and I’m thinking, ‘Wait, pal, aren’t you the guy that wanted to turn NASA into a Muslim outreach arm of the federal government?’”
Jim DeMint: The President will propose freezing spending at record high levels. Our debt crisis demands spending cuts, not a freeze. When a car speeds toward a cliff, you hit the brakes, not cruise control.”
From:
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.pdf
UPDATE
We got ourselves a Digglanche….thats the reason for the spike in traffic and the dozens of moonbats parading around in the comments. Fun times!
I like DeMint’s analogy. Hitting the brakes is what is needed, not turning on cruise control.
After reading this from Florida Judge Vinson’s ruling:
I came across this:
LOL!
One individual mandate deserves another.
Liberal Debate Mantra: If you have no argument, If there is no way to substantiate your argument, If you are losing the argument = Then “Attack” the person or (persons as a group). Add “non-existent” violence while “attacking” Tea Party group(s). ‘Know’ without ‘proof’ , the reason (must be all that vile right wing talk) why a mad man shot 19 people….. Stunning isn’t it ?
A Gallup poll just released found that 71% of Americans want the GOP to consider Tea Party ideas. The number was 88% for Republicans and 72% for Independents. The left still claims the Tea Partiers are the radicals. Based on the poll, it’s obvious who the real radicals are.
I gird my teeth several times a day. Oh, wait…that’s “gird” not “grind”. Girding means…uh…um…what does girding mean anyway?
Wow, Americans are ridiculous.
The response to Chris Matthew’s remark shows unbelievable Constitutional illiteracy. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation. And they still couldn’t vote. Google it if you have to.
Well Arthur, if you are in America feel free to leave. If not then stay out. We have enough left wing idiots here.
You’re seriously presenting Chris Matthew’s response to Michelle Bachmann as “crazy liberal talk?” The woman thought that the founding fathers fought against slavery, they did nothing of the sort! This is akin to Palin’s complete ignorance of Supreme Court decisions and general inability to speak in complete sentences. I don’t care that Palin and Bachmann are conservative (there are many conservatives I agree with on a number of issues), I care that they’re at best ignorant and at worst mentally challenged.
@TheReviewer:
In days of old (and in modern sports) men would ”gird their loins” for battle or competition.
It protects from hernia.
Women also used to wear girdles to look thinner.
If you’re going to quote people to make fun of them, get a transcript and supply a link. I’m so tired of this meme that liberals are all “tax and spend,” while so-called conservatives have proven, administration after administration, that they’re “spend and spend.” Yet all the while telling us how irresponsible Obama is. Ah, screw it. There’s no point in talking to people who look at you blankly when you ask them to justify their self-contradictions.
Yeah, these weren’t nearly as funny as I was hoping for. And like “Concerned” said, the response to Bachman was NOT unreasonable. Her warped version of history wasn’t simply a misspeak or an error of a name or date- she got entire chapters of history dead wrong. HUGE concepts completely in error, and nobody on the right challenged her on it? That’s creepy.
Sure, its funny when somebody uses the wrong word or mixes their metaphors- but the Tea Party Queen is dangerously ignorant of her country’s history.
She is an elected official and that’s a genuine concern.
@anticsrocks: That’s right because doing nothing has always helped the bottom-line. Good news is that it looks like the conservative plan might actually be to do nothing.
If you own a store and you are losing money. There are two choices liquidate the business or spend money to try and make a come back. Irresponsible spending can be a problem but spending must be done. If any conservatives were actually proposing a solution then at least that’d be something but they aren’t.
Stop being scared of low-wage illegal immigrants and start worrying about our big jobs being moved overseas, Stop blaming consumers who want to own homes, cars or survive an illness and look at the predatory lending practices of big business and banks, and stop thinking that healthcare is a bad thing. You might fear it but look at drug prices in Canada, look at the mortality rate of infants, look at the lifespans of Americans.
CONCERNED , why should I take your word on your comment?
DamMockRaceSee, yes THAT is why this GOVERNMENT is not doing their jobs,
only the jobs they are not suppose to do, and it’s also lousy.
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone Take my word about what?
*face palm*
Ok, number one, put dates on quotes to show us you aren’t just pulling these quotes from before the shooting, rendering your point moot.
Number two: get a BA in history, Stalin’s quotes have nothing to do with your point. You could post the transcripts of every speech of his, it will still have no bearing on post-Arizona shooting politics.
number three, calling someone a balloon head isn’t violent.
number four, you missed a great opportunity to nail Democrat representative Cohen. Seriously, don’t let me do a better job at this than you.
number five, President Obama speaking about combat in Afghanistan has no bearing on your point. But if it does, why not respond to what he’s saying with some facts…..do you have any? You may be right,about whatever uncommunicated thing you are trying to say about Obama’s comment….but we have no way of knowing that or what the point IS.
Number five: Why put in things conservatives have said. You are making them look bad. Isn’t that against your point?
Well spoke ‘concerned’. What’s worse is that Palin and Bachmann are fairly representative of level of intelligence that can be expected from anyone on the right. So sad.
My fav all-time Conservative quotation : “We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term” Dana Perino, Bush’s Press Secretary, on Sean Hannity’s show. Needless to say, Hannity had no reaction of any kind, nor did his lackey. HAHAHA. Fox Network, gotta love ‘em.
Holy crap, Gary!
Moved to a dedicated server in the nick of time it looks like….handling the traffic well.
“By the way, any person who says slaves were treated as three-fifths of a person in the constitution does not know anything about constitutional history.”
You’re a moron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
Pingback: Tweets that mention Say What? 2/1/2011 edition. [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces -- Topsy.com
Mr. “Concerned” as a low flying troll, you’re full of it. John Adams, as a founding father, wrote parts of a civil law in Massachusetts, 1780, that abolished slavery in that state. He was an avowed abolitionist. John Quincy Adams, his son, gave Lincoln the idea of the Emancipation Act to be used as a war power. He was an avowed abolitionist and a spear head of the new Republican Party. Read about the Adams family, you moron, and no, I’m not talking about the sitcom you probably studied from.
Some pretty amazing quotes. Good to know the guy next in line to be Senate Majority Leader doesn’t even know what the three branches of government are. Don’t they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? Isn’t that considerably more difficult when you have not read it?
@oil guy from Alberta:
Michelle Bachmann’s statement was that they fought slavery until it was ended. Are you saying an examination of our founding fathers would yield evidence that most of them did actively fight against slavery as a significant amount of their political activity?
I would never argue that the founding fathers were for slavery. I know for a fact that Benjamin Franklin wrote essays in support of abolishing slavery (something I learned reading his biography and autobiography). However, in no way could his contributions have been seen as “tireless.”
Your demeanor isn’t very conducive to a conversation. (That means you’re an asshole).
Well lookee here. Some intellectually inferior leftists have stopped by to vomit their stupidity on the site and then run away.
@concerned:
Incomplete sentences? You must..uhhh…be… uhhhh…talking…uhhh uhhh…about …obama.
What is it about leftists that scares them so much about strong women? Why must they spew unfounded hate against them? So much for their claims to be for the equal rights of women.
@alejo699:
If you weren’t a drive by troll you would see that many here were not happy with the behavior of the GOP when they controlled Congress. You also deliberately ignore how the Dems have spent us into the biggest deficit ever. No surprise considering your kind doesn’t face up to reality too well.
@DamnMockRaceSee:
Ummmmm, where did anyone say the plan was to do nothing? Do you not understand even the most basic of metaphor? Obviously not. I’d say you couldn’t possibly be that dumb, but you are a leftist.
Love the racism card too. Does it ever occur you reality challenged, elitist snobs that maybe we have a problem with ANYONE being here illegally? FYI, I’m a Latino. So much for you racism claim, eh? BTW, how about you stop being so afraid of capitalism? Just because you can’t cut it doesn’t mean we cannot.
@Helios:
Helios, try lurking here before posting next time. That way you won’t embarrass yourself with stupid questions. Then again, you probably will anyway considering what you’ve shown of your intellect.
@Ford Perfect:
Ummmm, yeah. That is why the Dems got their butts kicked in the midterm, but still think they lost due to messaging.
@John Q Public:
Yes Bush had a terrorist attack on his watch…thanks to Clinton and the dems. Go ahead and continue blaming Bush for everything. It worked so well in the last election. Buwahahahahahaha!
Mr. Public here’s my all time Obamaism. “My uncle helped to liberate the camp at Auschwitz”. Let me guess that his uncle was a political commissar of the Red Army. This would fit the political theme of his family perfectly. For brevity’s sake, this quote is one of many.
@Hard Right:
Sarah Palin is a strong stupid woman. I don’t care that she is strong, I care that she is stupid. Your confusion in our opinion of Sarah Palin is because you don’t realize how amazingly stupid she is.
You also confuse criticism for hate. I have no problem with Sarah Palin being a private citizen – I fear greatly what would happen if she was elected president.
Oh, like wow. What, like a convincing, like arguement. You had like, so much proof she’s, like stupid.
You try to mask your hate with criticism. Unfortunately for you we’ve seen it before and even though you can’t face something about yourself you don’t like, we can and call you on it.
@DamnMockRaceSee:
Ah, talking points, they just flow don’t they, so easy, so, so easy.
Let’s see what those conservatives are actually doing…..how about the reduction of nondefense discretionary spending to 2008 levels.
End federal funding for presidential elections, reduces the budget deficit by $617 million over 10 years, resolution already passed in the House.
Proposals from Rep. Eric Cantor’s site:
From Canter’s speech to the Heritage Foundation
He further explains:
Then there’s this:
http://majorityleader.gov/Solutions/jobs.htm
Spend what money?????
That was a heck of a comment, wasn’t it Missy? Rather than change the way they are doing things he goes straight to fold or throw more gas on the inferno. Who says dems don’t understand economics?
@Hard Right:
Sarah Palin Katie Couric Interview
I won’t refer to her North Korean gaff, because I think she just had a slip of the tongue in that case. I do have a critical mind.
Yeah I guess I’m the only one that sees her as performing poorly in that interview. I guess you’d say Katie Couric was being ruthless?
I love how according to your logic I can’t dislike any women without being anti-feminist.
@oil guy from Alberta, #27:
Obama got his family history a bit wrong. Actually it was his great-uncle, Pfc. Charles T. Payne. He served with Company K , 355th Regiment, 89th Infantry Division, which liberated the Nazi forced labor and concentration camp at Ohrdruf, Germany, on April 4, 1945. The 89th’s website confirms that Payne was there.
We really, really need to put in a requisition for some better moonbats….
Is this batch the best that the Left has to offer up?
Really?
1) Slaves were counted as whole persons. Only 3/5 of that total was used to calculate representation in the House of Representatives. Southern, slave-owning states wanted the entire slave population counted. Northern, non-slave states wanted slave populations not counted at all for the purposes of representation.
2) Multiple efforts were put forward by the Founders over a period of time in order to first limit, and then to eventually end slavery beginning with the three-fifths compromise in Philadelphia.
3) Conservatives aren’t offering any solutions to the reckless spending? You really need to wake up and pay closer attention there Van Winkledum.
4) Infant mortality rates are not a good means of comparison because the very basic idea of what is considered a “live birth” varies from one country to another. America counts every infant born alive as a live birth. Other countries do not.
5) Wanna know why American jobs are moving overseas? A) We have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. B) Our gov’t has worked to create an environment of regulation and bureaucracy in which it is virtually impossible to establish, maintain, or expand a business profitably.
6) Can you show me which of the Enumerated Powers in the US Constitution gives the Congress the right to force all Americans to purchase health care? If so, you need to contact the Obie Administration because a certain judge in Florida slapped that idea down yesterday. In fact, Obie himself back in 2008 said that a mandate could not be used because, if that were the case, then mandated home ownership would have solved the problem of homelessness a long time ago.
@concerned:
Let me guess…you’re an Obama voter aren’t you?
Ah yes, the Katie Couric interview. That’s where she was interviewed for 8 hours and they edited out anything that would make her look good. Not to mention it was clear Sarah was peeved at how Katie was clearly persuing an agenda against her. You don’t ask the same questions over and over unless you are trying to get a reaction from someone. What you saw was what they wanted you to see. You fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Actually, we know you hate strong, Conservative women, but who’s keeping track?
@Aye:
Indeed. Let me guess…you don’t believe in evolution do you?
I find your way of saying that slaves were not counted as 3/5 of a person as rather perverse. Just my opinion.
Multiple efforts are all well and good. The founders in no way acted tirelessly. The founders also certainly did not end slavery.
I agree, conservatives do almost nothing but suggest cuts to spending. What bothers me is which cuts they want to make. And until hard fact proves otherwise, we need to be open to viewing tax cuts as another form of spending.
High corporate tax rates don’t matter when mega-corporations can push money around and avoid paying what they’re supposed to. Obama JUST proposed lowering the tax rates along with closing these loopholes – something he has been met with opposition by on both sides. That’s not a conservative or liberal problem, that’s a problem with politics per se.
Nothing in the constitution lays it out word for word, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily unconstitutional. And wasn’t it the insurance industry lobby getting into bed with politicians (liberal and conservative alike) that resulted in the individual mandate? And another thing, what’s wrong with being unconstitutional? That’s what amendments are for – it’s not as if we’ve never sought fit to use them before.
@Hard Right:
Where’s the unedited version? I’ll watch.
@concerned:
You lefties are nothing more than parrots. You can do nothing but spew the same uniformed and self aggrandizing talking points.
If you knew Aye, you wouldn’t have asked such a stupid evolution question of him.
You can’t argue with what he said, so you have a problem over how he said it? That’s pathetic.
We do nothing but suggest cuts to spending…except when we suggest cuts to taxes. Little FYI, your claims that tax cuts are really spending has been thoroughly disproven thanks to hard facts and history.
So because in your opinion it doesn’t specifically say the mandate is unconstitutional, you think it isn’t? And you call us ignorant . So why don’t we try a Constitutional amendment instead of ramming it down people’s throats? Oh I see, it’s because elitist narcissists like yourself are “doing it for our own good.”
@concerned:
Considering the 13th amendment wasn’t passed until 1865 and considering the progress the Founders made in eliminating slavery in their own states and other territories, I would say they did actively fight slavery.
Here you will find names, quotes, etc. of the Founders that spent “a significant amount of their political activity” abolishing slavery, some, up until they died. BTW, I’m pretty sure that….”stupid woman”….Sarah Palin is well versed on the history of our Founders.
Here’s a tutorial for you.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html
This is what the Constitution said with regards to slavery:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson did in fact try to get it eliminated from the Constitution through excise of the slave clause but failed because of opposition. Too bad he failed because it was the biggest flaw in the Constitution and went against its principles. Also take note that the Civil War did not abolish slavery. The 13th Amendment did.
Without getting into a long drawn out history of the Civil War, keep in mind it was not fought over slavery alone although that was a big factor. Among other things, it dealt with the issue of states’ rights over rights of the federal government, there were also two very different economies, and the country had unprecedented expansion and growth in terms of land area, population, and the economy during the first half of the 19th century. A fairly high percentage of Northerners, including prominent generals like George B. McClellan, fought because they wanted to preserve the Union. They cared less about slavery and were actually quite racist. Southerners believed they had a Constitutional right to secede. The South during the latter part of the war gave freedom to slaves who fought for the Confederacy, which was a policy advocated by Robert E. Lee, who was a slave holder himself. Unlike the North, Southern units were integrated. Following the war, the two sections of the country almost went to war again and mind you that was after slavery was abolished and Blacks were given the right to vote etc. Some historians believe that slavery was in fact crumbling and would have went away because of the expansion of the Southern economy to other crops besides cotton and through modernization with the use of machinery. There was also dissension against it in Southern cities. Anyone advocating the idea that the Civil War was fought solely to free the slaves is mistaken.
Now back to dealing with this blizzard.
Mr.” You Don’t Have To Be Concerned” – Let me deconstruct your strawman and your drivel. I’ll make it very easy for you.
Bachmann generalized and made it easy for low flying gotcha buzzards. Your question is too easy. Learn your history about the founding fathers and you will find abolitionists. Now to remove the straw- the words most and significant. Should be some and notable.” The pen is mightier then the sword”. John Brown used the gun and died for it. The Two Adams used the pen(father-son).
Now the drivel. As a low flying troll you expect to do a fly-by and not get your ass paddled. As more working people come on site expect a lot more. Go back to Kiddie Kos.
Now Concerned sees why the other trolls ran. They don’t have the I.Q. points to do anything but post and run, and they knew it.
@Hard Right:
Do you honestly think you and Aye are providing me with some kind of information I didn’t have? From my viewpoint your information is the same uninformed narcissism.
The answer to my question is highly relevant, more so than his.
Present me with those facts then Hard Right, please.
I’m an elite narcissist because I believe in the power of the amendment? I guess you could do without the Bill of Rights?
@concerned:
That, in and of itself, goes to show what a bad idea it is for you to go around calling Palin and Bachmann, et al “ignorant”, “stupid”, or “mentally challenged.”
You are, of course, entitled to whatever opinion you may wish to have. You are not, however, entitled to your own very special set of facts.
What I stated regarding the three-fifths compromise is, in fact, a historically based reality.
OK…Mr. Interwebz smart guy….which of the Founders worked toward ending slavery, then grew tired and ceased their efforts in that regard?
Straw man.
Wait…what?
The US Constitution serves to specifically lay out the powers of the gov’t. If a particular power is not given to the Federal or to the State, then those powers are reserved by the People.
Another straw man. The genesis of the mandate is irrelevant. The constitutionality of the mandate is what we’re discussing.
If that’s the approach that your side of this issue wishes to take, then you should take that approach.
Pass an Amendment that will allow the Fed Gov’t to mandate the purchase of health insurance… Then, and only then, would the gov’t have the authority.
Of course there is no way that such an Amendment would ever make it out of Congress and then get ratified by the requisite number of States. Especially since over half of the States were Plaintiffs in the suit that was decided yesterday.
But, by all means, have at it.
@Missy:
I never contested the opinions of the founding fathers. Only the degree of their actions. I would still contend they hardly worked “tirelessly.” Tireless, to me, implies an exhaustive overwhelming amount of their time went to this, and I have still yet to see evidence to that extent.
Obviously we are providing you with information you are ignorant about.
As for the tax arguemnt, this site has a search feature. Use it. We’ve had this conversation with a better class of leftist than you.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit? I’ll use small words for you. You are an elitist narcissist because you take positions meant to make you feel good about yourself and no other reason. Facts mean nothing to you. You look down on those that disagree with you and project your own failings onto them-such as being ignorant. You have shown your ego exceeds your knowledge. Because you think you are superior to others you have no problem forcing them to live by your beliefs.
As for the Constitution, if the founding fathers had intended for the Commerce Clause to be used to give government the power to do whatever it wanted, they wouldn’t have bothered with the rest of the Constitution, genius.
This is from Michelle Bachmann’s speech:
Bachmann went on to say that while slavery was still tolerated when the nation began, the “very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States,” including John Quincy Adams.
“tirelessly until slavery was no more” they certainly did not work until this point. In no way is saying that the founding fathers did not end slavery a straw man argument, it is exactly the representation of fact in the face of an utterly incorrect statement.
She did not say the worked tirelessly. She said they worked tirelessly until it was ended. This is clearly not true.
@Hard Right:
A better analogy would be. Family’s on a really tight budget, barely making it yet they included an allowance for little Obama. He blows his allowance and, money borrowed from pals on campaign signs for class president. He gets elected, empties the class treasury for thank you slurpees for his pals, then lifts cash from dad’s wallet to pay the treasury back, now little Obama has his hand out for his next allowance and a raise. He deserves neither.
I’m not sure by what stretch of the imagination Joseph Stalin could be classified as a liberal. I guess I’ll give Mr. Kukis the benefit of the doubt, and file that one under humor.
@Missy:
Now you’ve done it. Calling him ” little” will bring out the cries of racism.
Sounds like Obama’s father should have spanked him.
GARY KUKIS, hi, good POST and you where doing like putting honey on your POST, I duno
but you did attrack a lot of lib worms, here, HAVE YOU NOTICE it?
@Greg:
You do realize, don’t you Greg, that Stalin, and his form of gov’t are of the Leftist ilk right?
GREG because he was a communist , DON’T YOU THINK
Greg, Stalin was quite generous with other people’s money. Like liberals he too felt that the wealth should be spread around. He also agreed that people shouldn’t be given the choice to decide things for themselves. Let’s not forget how much Stalin hated America. Then there is how Stalin looked down on his people and considered them to be ignorant peasants. He firmly believed that power should be concentrated with a select few and that it was all for the good of “the people.”
See, liberals and Stalin have lots in common.
concerned, I see that your concerned about it, but they work at it, did’nt they, that;s all we need to know without trashing anyone concerned.
Well I’m done guys. To those who tried to edify me, thanks.
And to Hard Right – you’ve in no way shown yourself to be either intelligent or educated. I guess the Katie Couric interview was a giant conspiracy created by the left wing? If Aye is a friend I’d recommend emulating him.
We knew you weren’t capable of facing reality, but we did it for those who might be lurking and buying into your shallow views.
@Aye:
I’m curious, Aye, was Hitler also a liberal?
What’s wrong Tom, reality creeping in again and you can’t handle it?
Hitler was a socialist. Not as far left as Stalin, but not too far away either.
BTW, Aye said he was of the left. That’s not the same thing as calling him a liberal.
@concerned:
Good grief, in addition to all they did for this country, risking their lives and their fortunes…… these men had families, homes and businesses to run. They didn’t take a plane or train to meet, they weren’t able to pick up a phone to contact anyone, they had to travel the country side by horse, rain, snow, sleet….that took dedication, stamina and a whole lot of effort. Fortunately, we have records preserved that proves their dedication to this issue.
Well, if you would have perused the tutorial you would have noted the inclusion of Professor Walter William’s quote:
@Tom:
Hitler was on the Leftist end of the spectrum just like all of the other despots throughout history.
They’re all yours.
You should embrace the heritage of the crowd you’ve made yourself a member of and enjoy all of your progenitors.
God help us, because you wingnut fuckers are the dumbest sacks of shit on earth.
Having served my country for 30 years including 4 tours in hostile fire zones, I fully respect the Constitutional right of the lefties out there to call me a racist, an extremist, an idiot, and their enemy just because I oppose Obama’s agenda.
@rougy:
Wow, way to flex your intellect.
Don’t leave. Stick around and show us how smart you are, coward.
@Aye:
Mine? I wasn’t alive back then, Aye. What was it like?
So the Nazis were just another bunch of dope smoking liberals, liberals who happened to wage a bloody fight against communists in the streets of Munich throughout the 30s, during their rise to power, and not the Far Right fascist party all those reputable historians erroneously labeled them as. They should have come to San Francisco, chilled out, played some bongo drums, and none of this would have happened.
From reading Aye’s posts, I’ve learned that Stalin, Hitler and the KKK were all liberals. What an interesting, elastic, rather convenient definition. It’s almost as if liberals are, well, Evil.
Always a shame to see the left and the right not come to terms on ANYTHING!
Send people to your website: http://www.webdesignandmarketing.us find out why internet marketing’s not the future, but the present.
Ummmm Tom, put down the bong. The nazis fought the communists over who would come to power. Not because they had opposing ideologies-which they didn’t.
Reputable historians? Hahahahahaha. Any historian that would call the nazis right-wing doesn’t deserve the title. We really know you mean leftist historian. I bet you believe we gave the indians cholera infected blankets too.
Tell us Tom, what was the official name of the nazi party? Can you answer that? How about answering where Aye called them liberals?
Hard Right, hi, they look like they’r all in the same class of none
all on the same note, they are very boring.
Beez, they are like mindless drones. Their heads have been pumped full of shite yet they believe the lie it’s gold.
Tom doesn’t even know the nazis were socialists. How blind/ignorant can you get?
@Tom:
Never said you were. Irrelevant straw man.
But, hey you’re known by the company you keep, eh?
Another straw man. I never said they were “liberals”. I said that they reside on the Leftist end of the spectrum.
The Nazis and the Communists may have fought for power, control, and authority in Munich but they weren’t fighting due to opposing ideology.
Take a look at the ideological beliefs of the Nazis as well as the Communists and you will find that they do not share any beliefs with those on the Right end of the spectrum, ie limited gov’t, maximum freedom, etc.
Anyone who tries to assign either of those two groups to the Right is either obfuscating, or ignorant, or both whether they be historian or Interwebz forum poster.
Again, reading, and accurate quoting is a very basic, fundamental skill which you have obviously not yet mastered.
I didn’t say they were “liberals”. I said that they were on the Leftist end of the spectrum.
If you care to attempt to refute that these groups were of the Leftist end of the spectrum then please, by all means, knock yourself out but don’t attempt over and over again to claim that I’ve said something that I haven’t.
You won’t be successful in your efforts, but we’ll all get a good laugh in the process of watching you flail about.
Your words. Not mine.
Exit Question: Did the Nazis and the Communists cooperate with one another during WWII?
Just turned on my machine, I surmise that Liberalism must stay in a state of denial or else they would disintegrate, but as Mark Twain wrote, “Denial is more than a river in Egypt.”
Let’s see if Tom ever answers. If he does it should be a hoot.
@Aye, #53:
With that level of paranoia-driven authoritarianism, the distinction between right and left pretty much becomes irrelevant.
Liberalism isn’t authoritarian, by definition. It’s anti-authoritarian.
Stop trying to spin things Greg.
You say by definition. By actual practice, authoritarian. Not as far as the Nazis, but headed in that direction.
@Aye:
Aye, you’re simplistically cherry picking tropes of the left and right and assigning them where you see fit. So the Right is nominally for ‘limited government”, therefore any authoritative government is necessarily Leftist? Doesn’t work that way. There are many stereotypically conservative ideals and tropes that play directly into the formation and powerbase of authoritative governments, such as, say, the Nazis. Nationalism/”exceptionalism”, xenophobia, homophobia, blaming the government for high unemployment, militarism, resentment at limitations on armament, anger at decadence in society or ‘liberal social mores” : these are the major factors that drove Nazi recruitment and they don’t sound leftist or liberal to me. They sound pretty Right Wing, in fact. Not too surprising, therefore, how history has judged Nazism just that.
Let’s look at another popular conservative ideal: religion. How many theocratic autocracies exist in the world today? Are they also ‘leftists’ as they claim the “word of god” overrides all other considerations? Now is it liberals who are always talking about God, Aye? Is it liberals saying gay marriage is an abomination? That we’re a “Christian nation”? And why are the oppositions to these theocratic governments referred to as liberal or secular?
That’s called stereotyping with a large amount of strawman thrown in. Bravo. You avoided actually thinking Tom, just as you were trained. Here’s your cracker.
BTW Tom, what was the name of the nazi party? I noticed you didn’t answer. Now why is that? Hmmmmm.
@Hard Right:
HR, did I miss your response to this? Didn’t think so. Why don’t you put your pom poms down and let your hero, Aye, handle this sans the cheerleading. I don’t think he really needs his side-kick clown to motivate him.
@Hard Right:
So you have an alternate theory for the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, HR? I would like to see that. I would actually like to see you point out Germany on a map, but here’s your chance to impress.
Tom, answer the question. What was the actual name of the nazi party?
@Hard Right:
Are you asking for the National Socialist German Workers Party?
I won’t assume you are stupid enough to think that proves anything, but if you want to convince me otherwise…
Unable to directly answer or factually refute the arguments and questions posed to him, Tom goes into full blown spittle flecked spew spin mode giving us something to point and laugh at.
Didn’t I predict this would happen? Why yes, I do believe I did.
Care to try again there Tommy boy?
I’m going to bed now, so you’ve got all night long to read up on some history, research the facts, and attempt to put together a somewhat cogent reply.
Oh, by the way, did I miss your response to this?
Exit Question: Did the Nazis and the Communists cooperate with one another during WWII?
Duh! You aren’t capable of seeing anything other than you far left ideology. You know, the ideology where you pretend there is nothing bad about your beliefs (to puff up your ego) while attributing everything bad to the Conservative ideology.
I knew you would try to say it means nothing. Funny, you were the one trying throw around strict adherence to definitions just the other day. Ooops.
You see Tom, history shows their beliefs weren’t that far from those that think like you do. I’m not calling you a nazi, but you are definitely cousins.
@Greg:
Uh huh….
Which is why big gov’t controlled, nanny state, forced down ideas – authoritarianism – (such as the individual mandate) are not considered to be liberal policies right?
Right?
Of course, the definition of terms such as “liberalism” has shifted over a period of time. In fact, the term “conservative” is synonymous with the term “classic liberalism.”
But again, the only one bandying about “liberal” is you and your buddy Tommy boy.
You go Hard Right!
Here’s something you’ll ignore Tom, since it doesn’t fit with your core belief that you are morally and intellectually superior simply by virtue of your beliefs.
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
@Aye:
I didn’t duck the question. I don’t really understand what your point is. Obviously, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia fought against each other in WWII. The only area of cooperation I’m aware of was a tacit allowance of atrocities in the Baltic states and Poland as they traded territory back and forth.
#63, Mr. Rougy, please tell me the size of your posterior, that way, I can choose the size and the type of equipment needed, to hand it back to you.
One definition of communism per Webster: “a hypothetcial stage of socialism, as formulated by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others, to be characteried by a classless and stateless society and the equal distribution of economic goods and to be acheived by revolutionary and dictatorial rather than gradualistic means”
fascism (which NAZISM is): “a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism etc.
While they have differences (not many when comparing Hitler and Stalin for instance) they are both similar in that they advocate dictatorships and strong central governments. It would seem that they would be on the same side of the political spectrum. The opposite to this side of the political spectrum would seem to be this:
Definition of ANARCHY
1a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder
Or this
http://volokh.com/posts/1185254785.shtml
@Aye: You’re such a hardass.
@FAITH7: It is as true as can be: If a neo-conservative is whining about something a Democrat is doing politically, it is always a proven Republican tactic the left has learned to turn against them.
@Aye:
Classical liberalism =/= conservatism, and especially not neoconservatism.
Please, for the love of God, read a book.
@Mr.Rick:
Ah yes, the lie that the dems are the victims who have turned the tables. Who invented “Borking”? What comparable example before that do you have? Let me guess? None. Why? Because you are only interested in justifying your bigotry and mistreatment of Republicans.
@John:
JR if that’s you, you REALLY need to take your own advice. Either way the poster is a hypocrite.
Say What?
So, this is how Obama acts????
What a child!
Obama has let go by the first major document deadline from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Wow! I leave for a day and a half for a simple little blizzard (not the one from Dairy Queen) and come back to find that the moonbats are out in force!!
Either that, or B-Rob has multiple personalities and has attempted to re-invade FA. LOL
Just when I got ready to answer some dry, boring, re-hashed liberal talking point, I scroll down only to find that Aye, HR, Another Vet, Missy, Nan, et al have done so in fine fashion.
Palin bashing has morphed into the new libtard social status activity. LOL
She tweets and the MSM goes into conniption fits.
I normally associated myself as someone on the Left; namely, that I wanted to help people less fortunate than me, and have a set of rules that made sure no one company or group of people took advantage of another. This was about all I knew and cared about, as far as the Left is concerned.
This discussion, however, lead me to do some research. And it really does seem that Nazism, Communism, and Socialism are all on the far left. It puzzled me at first; so what’s on the Right? Nothingness? Anarchy? Everybody fending for themselves, with no limit to how dark we can be to one another. Of course, I can’t imagine anyone here wants true anarchy. Perhaps some rules to keep things in check? How many rules? If we have too much, we feel like we’re back in our parents’ house. Too little, and the greed of individuals can take advantage of a large amount of others who may depend on them.
So now I’m a little closer to the Center, but only in a universal format, not an American one. Mainly because some of the loudest on the Right, in this country, act as childish as Hard Right. This format of discussion only pushes people like me away from your cause. Saying “well he called me names first! They’re all name-callers! Thus, I’ve earned my name-calling pass” is not the grown-up way to lead a discussion. Others in here obtained my interest to look things up on my own while discussing things in a respectable manner, and hey, you got a new person to agree with you on some things. Maybe you, Hard, can take a note from this example? If you want to prove you’re right, prove you’re someone worth agreeing with. It might give you more satisfaction than calling people stupid over and over again.
(This, of course, applies to all other name-callers in this thread, but this particular member was most aggravating)
Anyways, this is just the result you all had on some malleable college student. Thought you’d like to know.
Conservatives [to conserve] Progressives-Liberals [to progress] I think neither won’t can’t! Both are Big Government Advocates, Lack Historical Perspectives and spend and care mostly or only for their own.
The Republicans War of Choice, of Nation Building and of removing one dictator and supporting many others is the contributing factor of unsustainable debt [no the civic, social, investment or freeloader programs]. The Democrats are no different with their War of Choice to contain 100 Islamic Nazi’s and the unsustainable cost to consumerize a 12th century culture. With an exception of the few, the rest are bought and paid for and have only their best interest at their self rightious heart! Like Proabition, it doesn’t work! No need for wealth distribution or class warfare, we just all need to share or a share in what the Legislators appropriate for themselves [healthcare, Vacations-all of it].
Gee…thanks Gary!
@Aye #45:
concerned is latching onto a comment Bachmann made which her critics are making a big fuss over. Really, it’s partisan knitpicking. Did Bachmann really mean from the way in which she phrased the sentence that she thinks the founders ended slavery on their watch? Mmm…I’d say that’s wishful thinking on the part of dishonest political partisans. She delivered a poor choice of phrasing. And that gives political opponents a chance to score cheap points and make mountains from molehills.
If I said I’m going to work tirelessly until Obama is defeated in 2012 but I happened to die before his 2012 defeat…did I lie if he in fact ends up defeated?
Slavery was ended in this country- a practice that had been around for thousands of years before America’s existence as a nation. And ending it was a process whose beginnings did not start with John Quincy Adams or with Lincoln. One can even trace the roots of anti-slavery sentiments and movement in this country even pre-Founding Fathers.
@concerned:
JQA did work rather tirelessly, didn’t he? 1831- til death (17-18 years) in the House of Representatives to end slavery? (Bachmann refers to him as a “forebear”, not a Founder…is there a difference there worth noting?). Now maybe you can be nitpicky about what is meant by “tirelessly” when it comes to the founders; but many were indeed anti-slavery; and yes, even the ones who owned slaves. It’s easy to sit here morally smug in our 21st century armchairs condemning the Founders for not moving fast enough or for owning slaves without putting ourselves in the shoes of the times and in the context of the world in which they navigated through. Gaffa and I had a pretty extensive debate on the subject (read comments).
Nice to see that Joey is starting to come around. By the time he hits 30 he’ll be a Reaganite. Joey, remember these two Reaganisms: ” Government is not the solution, government is the problem” and ” we are one generation away from the loss of freedom”. I paraphrased so shoot me- another lefty solution. Reagan is directly responsible for the liberation of hundreds of millions in Central and Eastern Europe. Again look it up. Reagan is top 3 of your presidents and the Bamster wants some of his glitter. Won’t happen- he’s one and done.
From the Wikipedia entry on the 3/5 compromise, suggested by Bill the troll:
Undercounting slaves was a weapon against slavery, that took power away from any state with slaves. The more slaves a state had, the more power it subtracted. The slaveholders were the ones who wanted slaves counted in full in the census.
I already knew that, but for crying out loud– the essential truth of the matter was right there in front of you. All you saw was “3/5, Constitution, I win.”
For the moonbats on the left: ( government history for beginners)
1) Washington- started it
2) Lincoln- kept it together
3)Reagan- made it happen. We need another Reagan. Who’s going to step to the plate?
AND ANOTHER:
“Jerry Brown cites Egypt unrest to make case for tax hikes!”
LOL…I love how absolutely ANYTHING is proof of the libtards position.
Record cold and growing ice fields are now “proof” of warming!
Lower crime rates are “proof” we put too many people in prison!
Massive debt is “proof” we need to spend more!
Down the rabbit hole we go! Lobotomies for everyone!
@Hard Right:
Your ego is amazing. I wish mine was that big.
@John:
Dood…Keep on like this and you’re gonna embarrass all your little digg/dugg friends.
Classic liberalism is a philosophy which embraces the idea of limited government and maximum freedom of the individual including freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and free markets.
Great advice there John….perhaps you should try actually using it rather than just dispensing it.
@Joey:
If you’re still reading here at FA, and if you really want to have an open mind and learn some things, please stick around.
You really won’t find a better site on the Interwebz for in depth discussion of issues and schools of thought.
Yes, we’re a Conservative bunch with a few die hard, strong willed libs sprinkled in for maximum flavor. It’s always good to have your shark proof underwear on before wading in since some comments can be biting, acerbic, or even downright caustic. Others will be filled with humor and/or sarcasm.
Here at FA you will find a unique combination of all of those things coming from an array of frequent participants who have a vast realm of knowledge, expertise, and life experience.
We would welcome your presence here should you decide to stay.
Well Joey, if you feel that me bashing lefties that came here to spew hate is bad, then I can’t help you. I’m done turning the other cheek and perhaps as you get attacked and smeared over time merely because your opinion differs from theirs, you will be too.
It’s amusing to me that you singled me out while giving what amounts as a pass to others in spite of the fact I did debate those puting forth political views and offered counter points to those that didn’t. You mentioned you used to be of the left. Your lopsided complaint tells me that you aren’t that far away from that spot yet.
@Silly Rabbit:
I’m betting small pretty much describes you in general.
Since the slavery issue has popped again I will expand a little bit on my earlier post about the Civil War and how it relates to the statements made by Moran and Matthews which is what helped to trigger this.
The first compromise that averted war in this country was the Missouri Compromise of 1821. It allowed slavery in new terrirtories south of 36 degree, 30 minute line and forbid it north of there with the exception of Missouri which admitted to the Union as a slave state. Neither side liked it. It essentially created two countries. When Lincoln ran for president in 1860 he said he would allow southerners to keep their slaves but would not allow slavery in the new territories and that his main goal was to preserve the Union at all costs. Make no mistake, Lincoln was strongly opposed to slavery. The South believed that if Lincoln were to be elected president he would not enforce the law of the land (the Missouri Compromise) and that would make him an illegitimate president. As such, they said if he was elected they would have no choice other than to secede which they had threatened before. When the South seceded (1861) Lincoln believed they had no right to do so and that it constituted anarchy. His plan was to send federal troops into the South to put down the ‘rebellion’ believing that it was the work of a few. The Northern war strategy was called the Ancaonda Plan which I won’t get into. What was lacking was an act war which would give justification to sending the troops into the South. Someone had to fire the first shot and that came at Ft. Sumter when Lincoln chose to resupply the fort which had been under seige knowing it would trigger an armed response, as opposed to abandoning it which would have destroyed his presidency. Lincoln issued a proclamation calling 75,000 militia men into federal service for a period of 90 days. That goes to show you how short the Civil War was supposed to have lasted. When the South showed far more resolve than the North anticipated, it became evident to everyone that the war was going to last a lot longer. Lincoln realized the only way to get the South back into the Union was through total war which was something he wanted to avoid because he didn’t want the South destroyed, he wanted to return it to the Union. In 1863 he made a last ditch appeal to the South telling them if they laid down their arms and returned to the Union THEY COULD KEEP THEIR SLAVES. When they refused, he realized that total victory was the only way to get the South back into the Union and that emancipation of the slaves was necessary to accomplishing that goal.
Note the years. Moran and Matthews either need to crack the history books themselves or quit preaching revisionist history crap whereby they only “recall” certain facts and leave important other ones out in order to justify their political views.
Joey #97 and to anyone else who wants to expand their knowledge- If you really want to learn about the Civil War and the events leading up to it, there are a number of good books out there. The one I highly recommend is “Battle Cry of Freedom” by James McPherson which is where most of the information in my two posts came from. It’s an excellent book. You’d be surprised at much most people don’t know about that war and the events leading up to it. Even know-it-alls like Chris Matthews.
@another vet:
Thanks!
Sounds like I need to pick up a couple books, my two grandsons are very interested in history, they may have already read the Battle Cry of Freedom, I will find certainly find out. During my visits to the thrift store over the years I’ve picked up age appropriate books about the Constitution, patriot’s bios, etc. then I take them to our farm. When the boys visit in the summer they always found them and took them home. Now they are 19 and 16. My latest find was at an auction, I got six boxes of books for $1.00, classics, mythology, poetry, lots of neat stuff, the 19 year old grandson took them all, all that happiness for $1.00. One of the boxes had travel brochures from all over the world. I’ve been cutting the pictures out of them and when my great-grandson visits we get the glue stick out and while he glues the pictures on construction paper we talk about where those pictures came from. He’s only 3, but someday I think it will all connect for him.
@Greg:
On the far, far left, there is full government control. That is Chavez, Mubarak, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc.
On the far left, you have a lot of government control. Is there a problem with healthcare? Pass a government law to fix it. People aren’t saving for their retirement? Pass a government law to fix that. Is, there a problem with education? Then make it more centralized and set up a huge bureaucracy in the federal government so that education will be much better.
In general, the left and far left want to provide taxpayer money and a government solution, mandate, and/or law in order to solve whatever real and imagined problems there are…to the point of deciding which kind of light bulbs I have to have in my house (mercury filled, of course!).
On the far, far right, there is no government. Every man for himself.
On the far right is libertarianism.
On the right is carefully limited government and enumerated powers, which is what our founders wanted, and which most people on the right want.
@Hard Right:
For some reason that I just cannot quite put my finger on, this thread reminds me of this video clip:
@Missy:
I’d like to humbly make some reading list suggestions for those grandsons of yours:
The Real Ben Franklin by Andrew Allison
The Real Thomas Jefferson by Andrew Allison
The Real George Washington by Jay Parry & Andrew Allison
The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall & David Manuel
Samuel Adams by Ira Stoll
1776 by David McCullough
@Missy:
I think it’s great that your grandsons are interested in history. There is not enough emphasis on that in schools. It seems as though it has taken a back seat to teaching PC. I was always more interested in Colonial and Early American history as well as the WWI-WWII era but given the current state of affairs in this country the Civil War era and the years preceding it sparked my curiosity. You can kind of see a similar path. A couple of other good books would be “The Hard Hand of the Civil War” by Mark Grimsley and “April 1865″ by Jay Winik. The first deals with the change in strategy of the way the war was fought and second deals with how the war ended and really gets into the minds of such figures as Lee and Grant and how the country very well could have plunged into a guerilla war during the years following Appomattox had the generals on both sides acted differently with regards to surrender. Lee in particular is a true patriot who actually prevented further bloodshed by defying Jefferson Davis’s wishes to protract the war using guerilla warfare.
Joey, hi, don’t be sorry and cry to us this way, you forget to check on that group of students approach to this high class BLOG, and instead you accuse our friend to respond truthfully and show them their manners forgotten because they are hiding, tell them that what they learned was suppose to have been teach in their schools, and check this truth ; we all new who they where from the first comment to that
last rouge using the f word, but I doubt if they have the brain to digest all they learned from our best here.
@Aye:
I am going to c&p your list and store it in my e-mail draft thingy. Much appreciated, we have birthdays coming up, thank you so much!
@Missy:
You’re very welcome.
Here’s one more:
America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story by Bruce Feiler
There are several others that I am forgetting at the moment but I don’t have access to my library right now.
@another vet:
I think I’m going to save this thread in my favorites, the books you mention would also be good ones for my nephew’s collection, will have to ask him if he’s read them yet somewhat spoiling a gift surprise but he’s a big boy and won’t mind. He’s career Army, has all my dad’s and his father’s war history books, generation number three sharing that interest/devotion.
He’s been researching the military history of our family members hoping to put it together in a book someday. Had to scoot up to Wisconsin to get information off the plaques on the backs of the grave stones for him and then he digs. Hope his project comes together for all of us, would love to read what he puts together. But, he’s a busy guy with a family.
Well if that’s the case, the Right has a funny way of practicing what it preaches. It seems to me the Right is quite preoccupied with ‘control’, whether it be controlling individual civil rights (gay marriage), reproductive rights (abortion), religious rights (prayer in school), medical rights (Terri Shiavo; war on drugs/marijuana), etc. etc. etc. If the Right were truly a monolithic libertarian movement, many in the Center and on Left (myself included) wouldn’t have as much of an issue with it. But that’s not the reality, is it?. Libertarianism and “every man for himself” is a small sliver of the Right, a shriveling vestige of a waning intellectual secular wing. When one looks at who wields power on the Right in America, I don’t see much of a libertarian influence. What about the Religious Right? Your last President was a born again Christian. Glen Beck and Sarah Palin call for a return to God. You think they aren’t interested in what their neighbors are up to in the privacy of their own homes? No, what you’re referring to is an ideal with no basis in reality. The truth of the matter is that Conservatives don’t want change. Usually (surprise, surprise) that’s because the status quo happens to favor them. You don’t maintain a status quo without control. Stopping struggling groups on the way up from attaining an equal footing in society, whether it be the labor movement, blacks, women, immigrants, gays, migrant workers, is a time honored Conservative tactic for attempting to maintain power. Of course you can’t stop progress, just like you can’t stop evolution, which is why I never understood the point in trying. Isn’t it remarkable how Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history on these issues, yet when they have a chance in their own day and time to not repeat the same mistakes of the past, they inevitably find themselves once again finding reasons to impede progress? Actually, what’s truly dumbfounding to me is discovering that Conservatives are going back in history and trying to co-opt Progressive triumphs. So now it was Conservatives who opposed slavery, Hitler and Jim Crow? Conservative marched with Dr King and for woman’s rights? If that’s the case, where are all the Conservatives standing up for equal rights for gays and humane, fair working conditions for migrant workers? Let me guess: “that’s different”. Fifty years from now the heirs to your self-serving philosophy will probably be claiming that it was actually those dastardly liberals back in the early 21st century who were against the gays and Mexicans. The Right is always on the right side, from a comfortable historical distance at least.
@Aye:
Amazon is my friend, they even know my name and you are making life easy for me! Thank you!
Aye, Can’t watch the vid where I’m at, but I will when I get home.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Beez, I’m wondering if Joey is legit. After all the invective directed at us, he glosses over it and says I was the most obnoxious. Makes me wonder if he’s just pretending to be someone that can swayed so when he leaves I get the blame. Either that or Joey is extremely naive. The folks I thumped have no desire to debate, debate honestly, or even consider another point of view. They came here to dump on us while patting themselves on the back for being so superior to us.
@Tom:
Yes Tom, we even killed the dinosaurs (roll eyes). Once again you display an ignorance of history and zero independant thought all so you can say how wonderful you are for being a liberal. Here’s a little hint, look at which party was against de-segregation and which of them supported the Civil Rights act in larger numbers.
@Hard Right:
I’m not talking about parties; I’m talking about people and whether they are temperamentally and philosophically conservative or progressive. Yeah, I ‘get’ that you’re trying to stick me with the southern democrats prior to Nixon’s southern strategy (when all the conservatives defected to the Republican party). It’s a childish ploy and meaningless to me because I’m not a southern democrat from the first half of the 20th century and have nothing in common with their beliefs or values. Have you ever measured your beliefs and values against theirs?
Parties change. Being ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal/progressive’ is the yardstick we’re working with here, I thought.
Terminology. Jeff Goldblum (“Protein Wisdom”) has written rather extensively on the conscious attempts of the Left to redefine ordinary words. It is a technique used to change the story by changing the meaning of the words used to tell the story.
The re-definition of “conservative” to mean “selfish, impractical hater” for example.
It might be productive to concentrate less on labels, and more on what people actually want to see happen, and why they want to see it.
Examples.
I want the Federal government to spend way less money because the current levels of expenditure are made possible by borrowing at unsustainable levels. I want the government to stop calling carbon dioxide a pollutant that is subject to regulation by the EPA, because that is a dishonest, economy-damaging executive branch power grab that thwarts the proper role of Congress. I want state and municipal governments to tell the truth about the impossible comittments they have made to pay pensions and retirement benefits, because pretending it’s all right is a ridiculous lie that temporarily hides the inevitable fact of imminent bankruptcy. I want public employee unions to be illegal because they are a conflict of interest that inevitably leads to corruption of the legislative process.
I want to not get called a racist for opposing the policies of the current government, a government which is dominated by the left wing of the Democratic Party.
TOM, you pretend to know, and what you learned is from where they like to
use hate and racebashing to control your mind, they use CONSERVATIVES,
because they can’t stand having them correct their lies and violent behavior against the good AMERICANS who still beleive in tolerance and hope to convince the young this is the right way to go, there is no alternative, so don’t try to give us your bullshit, we all got you figured out from the first time you comment.
Lets see, the Conservatives of the civil rights era were for desegregation and Civil Rights reform. I would call that rather progressive. I’m have no problem sharing that with them.
Tom you can try to “stick” everything bad on Conservatives, but it simply doesn’t fly. Sorry to burst your bubble (ok not really sorry), but if you mean progressive in the current sense, then they cannot be given credit for all that is wonderful and warm and fuzzy.
Tom, you have unintentionally highlighted exactly what I talk about by dumping everything negative onto your opponents while making “progressives” the embodiment of everything good. It’s narcissism based self aggrandizement and frankly, undeserving of it’s it’s high self opinion.
@Tom:
Just two really quick flyby questions until I have more time later on this evening.
1) Was Woodrow Wilson a liberal/progressive or a conservative?
2) Was FDR a liberal/progressive or a conservative?
@Tom:
Are you trying to say over 52% of California voters and Obama are on the Right and “preoccupied with ‘control” when it comes to gay marriage? or….
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/01/28/Marist-Poll-56-percent-against-abortion/UPI-79971264662086/#ixzz1Cpc1o0WV
are all on the right?
allowing prayer in school, is that really a right conservatives are trying to “control” or is it a choice, freedom of expression that should be allowed?
You know that case was iffy, she had a husband that…..moved on, the right has no problem with end of life decisions, we even sign living wills. Word of mouth by someone that wants to free themselves of the burden of a defenseless human being is not the same.
I volunteered for years in this area, it’s an issue both the right and left were in agreement on. Seminars and events that I attended were conducted by….lefties. They confiscated my allergie drugs at an 8 day confernce I attended because the event included students, talk about “control.” Had to convince them that when I needed my inhaler, I needed it immediately, trapesing three floors down to the nurses office to use my inhaler/prescribed drugs under supervision wasn’t going to work. Their position was; because the anti-drug seminar involved students–they shouldn’t see adults USING. They were high school students btw.
No, I don’t. You are now getting close to that black helicopter crowd.
As a matter of fact, the rest of your commentary is appearing to be getting a bit off the deep end. One thing I can conclude is that you don’t know as much about the “right” or conservatism as you think you do.
@Missy: If your nephew is also from Illinois, he may want to check out some of the Illinois units that were in the CW most notably the 8th and 12th Illinois CAV.
Some of those books Aye mentioned looked pretty interesting. I may have to check them out myself.
Missy nailed it. Tom doesn’t have a clue how Conservatives think or what they believe in. He simply recites the stereotype of us as taught by the left. He then congratulates himself on being on the side of all that is good and deems himself wonderful. Like I said, narcissism.
@another vet:
He was born in Illinois so he might want to take a good look at the military history of his own state, maybe he has, we will just have to talk.
Our family members that fought are all from the great state of Wisconsin exceptions: Justin, hubby, my brother and son. Illinois past has got to be better than Illinois present as long as we are not including Chicago, I’m saving this thread!
He’s stationed at Ft. Riley, took me on a nice trip around the base and told me a bit of Ft. Riley’s history, of course.
Just want to add, when he was schooling me about Custer/Ft. Riley, etc. I was in the back seat with baby Cady so much of what he said went in one ear and out the other. Have to take the tour with him again, all I remember was seeing Custer’s house.
@Hard Right:
Heh, that reminds me of one of President Reagan’s quotes:
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”
@Gary Kukis, #110:
So, on the far, far right we would find the anarchists?
The simple left/right dichotemy may be more of an obstacle than an aid to correct understanding. Some have suggested that an additional axis is needed to make any real sense of things, because the simple left/right model fails to measure the critical element of authoritarianism. The purest manifestation of authoritarianism in government has always been dictatorship. Dictatorship effectively eliminates freedom of the individual. That result is the same, no matter if the dictator’s pitch is from the left or right.
This anonymous political orientation test, which takes a couple of minutes to complete, and the analysis that comes up afterward, represent an attempt to include a second axis.
I’ve wondered before if the simple left/right model might be serving more as a tool of manipulation than as a means of understanding. It might serve to over-simplify our view of the political landscape, so that we can more easily be herded into one of two opposing camps. Those with a vested interest in either don’t really want people to be thinking outside of those two establishment boxes about possible third options.
@Greg:
Well put, Greg.
The test was quite a revealing lark. Apparently, the Dali Lama and I have more in common than I suspected (i mean apart from the way we dress).
@Tom:
Hi, Tom,
You made several reasonable points, so let’s see if I can answer them.
You said that the right, despite being in favor of less government, are overly concerned with government controlling the following: “individual civil rights (gay marriage), reproductive rights (abortion), religious rights (prayer in school), medical rights (Terri Shiavo; war on drugs/marijuana), etc. etc. etc.”
Let me take these one at a time. The easiest is abortion. If I tell you a fetus becomes a human being at birth, or at 9 weeks or at 18 weeks, I am making a religious and/or philosophical argument. At the moment of conception, that child has its own individual DNA, and within days, even before a pregnancy is known, the brain of that begins to function. It’s gender, DNA, blood type, and all other physical characteristics are determined before that child is even known to be in the womb, and he or she is a distinct individual from the mother. They may look alike; they may not. There is only a 50% chance the child will be the same gender as the mother. They may have the same blood type; they may not. There is not a single biologist who is going to describe this child in the womb as anything but a unique, unborn human being. He or she is not a cancer, a mass of disorganized cells, a wombat; biologically, that thing in the womb is a human being before birth; and if taken to term, even if that child is brought to term and , even if raised by a single mother, he or she could grow up to be President of the United States. So, a conservative who believes that life should be protected is simply acting to preserve life. Just because someone is the mother of a child in the womb, does not give her the moral right to kill that child, any more than she has the right to kill that child 2 days or 2 years after the child is born. Arguing that thing in the womb is somehow less than human is a philosophical or religious argument.
The public schools and many of our private colleges were founded to teach the Bible and many things related to the Bible. Singing Christmas carols was a long-standing tradition in our schools for over 100 years. Most of the early private colleges which were founded would be almost indistinguishable from a Bible college or a seminary today. So, given this educational heritage, there is nothing wrong with a little religion in schools, including prayer. Nor ought this religious instruction be divided up equally among the various major religions, because our founders were, for the most part, born-again Christians (they were not deists). The first Amendment simply meant that the Congress could not establish a national religion, and that we could worship as we pleased. Removing all vestiges of religion from public schools has been a 20th century phenomenon, which has not resulted in a better school system. The more secular our schools have become, the more our discipline has eroded, the more these schools cost, and the product they produce is becoming more and more inferior with each passing year. I speak as a retired public school teacher. So, if a school wants to pray now and again, codify the prayer into a daily routine, or whatever, I have no reason to oppose that. If a child sings about Jesus Christ in Silent Night, I don’t think that is going to warp that child.
When it comes to drugs and marijuana, that is where I part company, as a conservative, from the libertarians. Making drugs is going to lead to a society where more drugs are consumed, which is going to lead to a less motivated and less productive society, and it will not necessarily reduce crime. The cost that we might save in law enforcement will be lost elsewhere—lost productivity, lost youth, and a much larger population of non-functioning hedonists and homeless people. What is also a determining factor for me is, you cannot un-ring that bell. Once you make marijuana legal, you cannot change your mind about that. You cannot go back and say, “Hey, this is not really working out; let’s ban it again.” Prohibition tells us, you cannot un-ring that kind of a bell.
I also dislike the absolute dishonesty of the pro-marijuana movement. When medical marijuana was being discussed in California, we were sold a bill of goods that, there are all of these cancer patients out there and marijuana is the only drug that will help them eat and ease their pain, etc. etc. etc. (to quote you). Now that medical marijuana is legal in California, how many of these real medical cases are there? 1% of the “legal” usage in California? For the rest of the population, this has become a scam to get legal marijuana. And, if this was going to save so much law enforcement money, why isn’t California now just rolling in dough?
Last one I will cover is gay marriage. This has been a fundamentally dishonest movement from the very beginning. Again, we were sold this bill of goods that, there were all of these lifetime homosexual lovers being shut out of hospital rooms while their lover was dying, and they could not even go in to hold their hand. And so, some sort of legal status was given to homosexual relationships throughout the land. What is the result? A heartfelt plea for marriage rights, because marrying the person you love is the most important thing in the life of any homosexual (despite their almost 100% infidelity rate). We have 5000 or 6000 years of recorded history where a marriage between a man and a woman has been the norm. I do not see any pressing reason why this needs to be suddenly changed. Any gays can have some ceremony, call themselves married or whatever, and have a legally defined relationship by their state. No one prohibits this. However, I am not convinced that requiring the government to redefine marriage is some moral imperative that will make our society better. Notice, that is more government involvement, not less.
As a part of this movement, we have seen them dishonestly insert their agenda into our schools. There are some grammar schools where children are being taught about sodomy as if it is equivalent to normal male/female relations. This is passed off as sexual education. We now have children being educated about sex way before they need to be, and I would prefer to see all sexual education removed from the schools. Parents should never have dropped the ball on this one.
Let me give you another area of dishonesty. Bullying in schools—it’s a bad thing. So, somehow, bullying curriculums are set up, and, who is front and center? Homosexual unions, even though there is no evidence that there is widespread bullying taking place against a child who is being raised by a homosexual couple. With a bullying program, homosexuality is backdoored into the grammar schools once again. That is dishonest.
There are a huge number of parents who simply do not want the schools to teach that homosexuality is a valid life option, and they do not want their 10 year old kid being pushed to think about whether he is gay or straight. 10 year old kids don’t need to think about that. Neither do 12 year olds.
Another example of dishonesty in the homosexual community: research. Homosexuals who have studied their own research know that homosexuality can be a genetic predilection (like alcoholism), but that it is not determinative. That is, a person is not born a homosexual, but he is born homosexually-inclined, something which may or may not manifest itself (just like those who are born with a predisposition toward alcoholism).
We do know, for a fact, that children raised by heterosexual parents, that the child is less likely to use drugs, less likely to go on welfare, less likely to become a criminal, and more likely to do well in school. Our government has, instead, subsidized single-mothers, and, when government subsidizes something, you get more of it. Which means, more crime, more welfare, more drugs. The government should not be involved here at all.
In short, it is not government’s job to redefine marriage. When I see a gay pride parade in San Francisco, I look at these men, many of whom are half dressed and a few of which are simulating sexual acts in public, and I think, “No, that’s really not the direction I want my society to go it. That is not what I want to raise a child to do.” I simply choose to land on the side of 5000 or 6000 years of human history.
A long answer, I realize. But, whenever a movement is clearly dishonest about itself, then I am less inclined to agree to anything that it is asking for, even if they somehow figure out how to put the term “rights” in their agenda.
@Gary Kukis.
“despite their almost 100% infidelity rate”
“We do know, for a fact, that children raised by heterosexual parents, that the child is less likely to use drugs, less likely to go on welfare, less likely to become a criminal, and more likely to do well in school.”
Please provide evidence.
sniff, sniff….
sniff…
Anyone else smell a sock?
@musicmangp: Please decide on a username an use it, concerned or musicmangp…doesn’t matter to me which one but don’t switch off.
@Gary Kukis:
Gary,
I appreciate your long, thoughtful response, I really do. But, boy, I am having a hard time finding common ground with almost anything you’ve written.
Right off the bat, I’m confused as to your definition of ‘libertarianism’ and its application. If abortion (admittedly a very difficult issue to come to terms with, regardless of your view) is a ‘religious’ issue, why would that be grounds for a libertarian to reject it? Wouldn’t a libertarian put personal freedom above religious or moral concerns? Likewise, I’ve never seen a libertarian argument for religion in schools. You say that it’s because of tradition or precedent, but how can one justify choosing one religion over another? Isn’t it best to just leave religion as a private personal choice and out of public institutions entirely?
I won’t get into marijuana because you admit that you’re going against the libertarian grain with your views.
Honestly, where you’ve completely lost me is your view on gays. Gay rights has been a “fundamentally dishonest movement from the beginning” and therefore you oppose it? First off, how can you substantiate such a statement? Secondly, why would a libertarian care? Wouldn’t a libertarian be, if not necessarily pro-gay, against any sort limitations on personal freedom? Why would there even need to be a movement in a libertarian’s eyes? Wouldn’t their rights be self-evident and not contingent on the strange moral tests you ascribe?
About those. I find this insinuation running through your comments, that gays are somehow morally inferior to straight people and therefore not deserving of equal rights and treatment, frankly, truly bizarre and offensive. How do you justify rights being apportioned per your personal conception of morality? Speaking of that, where are you coming up with this stuff? Where are you getting that homosexuals have an “almost 100% infidelity rate”? You obviously do not know any committed gay couples if you believe such sinister propaganda. It would be laughable to me, if it weren’t so scary to know obviously intelligent people such as yourself believe this stuff and use it as reason to deny equal rights of fellow citizens. Again, how do the private actions of consenting adults factor into their standing in a free society? Let’s be plain about this: there is really no constitutional or legal argument against gay marriage; that argument rests entirely upon bigotry and salacious misrepresentations to stir peoples’ fears and apprehensions. Anyone who knows a gay person, even Dick Cheney, will tell you your characterization of gays is completely bogus. Throughout the past, many similar arguments have been made against many different groups. You’ve actually gone and demonstrated my point much better than anything I could have written.
Saw the Vid you posted Aye. Arrrg.
Not sure it’s fair to compare libs to cows. Cows are smarter and useful (rimshot).
Fair enough Curt, I was trying to start fresh; clearly I offended some folks and I wanted to see what things would be like if I just asked questions.
AYE CHIHUAHUA, you are on top of everything as usual,
AND you have a nose for the sock puppets that nobody can top also
Hard Right we could’nt do without you,
you acheive to step on every lib worms, in a tolerant way
I understand concerned…but most of us are pretty thick skinned so ask away. I’ve had problems with sockpuppets in years past so have a strict policy against anyone changing usernames. If someone wants to use a different username I have no problem with it, just let us know and stick with it.
@Tom:
Well, since you asked for source material which supports Gary’s statement, here ya go:
You’re welcome.
Thank you, Aye. Thank you for providing an example of the Right Wing Christian propaganda I referenced previously. (Apparently, at least one member of the Family Research Council went a little too deeply into his research on gay sex. Shocker) Yes, homophobic Right Wingers almost never turn out to be gay. Only maybe 50 – 60 % of the time. It’s truly amazing how an anti-gay organization that openly claims “Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects”, and has gone to court against gay marriage, would end up with such “scientific” findings. They sound pretty impartial to me.
Very disappointing, Aye. Expected more from you (believe it or not.)
None of this, of course, explains why Gary, and apparently Aye, believe that an individual’s rights should be contingent upon how many sexual partners he or she has, or what sex those partners happen to be. That conservative libertarian ideal is looking pretty ragged right about now.
@Tom:
Poor Tommy…I laid the bait out there and he dove right in without ever really thinking about what might be the sources which were compiled into the FRC report that I cited.
Did you bother to even read it Tommy boy? Or did you simply see the FRC at the top of the page and let your eyes glaze over?
I thought for sure that you, Interwebz Poster Extraordinaire, would have been able to suss out what I was doing to you.
Scroll on down, read the report, and you’ll note that there are multiple footnotes which cite the sources…some of which are actually studies done by professional researchers who also happen to be homosexual. The FRC didn’t do the research. They simply compiled it all into one convenient place.
You asked for facts but, of course, you’re not really interested in the facts now are you Tommy boy?
You’re just trying, and failing at some demented game of whatever it is that you’re playing.
I laid out the bait and you swallowed it. Just as I knew you would.
Hook. Line. Sinker.
Sadly, you lived up to the very low expectations that I had of you.
Sources please.
If only I had not done research on this, you might have been right. but, of course I did. I thought the study was too ridiculous on its face to require a response, but, since you ask, a prime source in this study (see source 6 reprinted below) has been debunked, as has the study:
(Please note, I am not stating that the Xiridou study itself has been debunked; rather the manner in which it’s been cited in studies such as the FRC’s is grossly misleading. Please read the article and the study for more information.)
6. Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
Don’t worry, Aye. I know you’re in the 40%.
So you still haven’t explained whether you support equal rights for homosexuals, Aye. It’s not fair of me to just assume. Should homosexuals have the right to marriage?
Good time to bring out Larry’s post on the subject of gay marriage.
@Tom:
Good try Tommy boy…. Good try.
Not quite good enough though.
Your source fails to cite any sources or do anything expository in his efforts to discredit Xiridou’s work. Work which was, I’ll remind you, peer reviewed before publication. He just simply says “It ain’t true” and expects that those of lesser intellect and a slight drool will nod their heads and say “Yeah”…
Fortunately, I’m not in that group. Plus, the FRC article I cited sports 56 source notes.
Even if I’m willing to spot you one Xiridou (and I’m not) then what are you gonna do about the other 55 sources that are there staring you in the face?
Exit Question: What are Jim Burroway’s qualifications when it comes to debunking a study done by multiple highly educated professionals and then subjected to peer review prior to publication? What gives Burroway any sort of credibility whatsoever on this matter?
@Aye:
What are you talking about? He links to the ACTUAL STUDY. In the 22 minutes since I’ve posted it, you’ve read the entire Xiradou study AND the Amsterdam Cohort Study?
Getting desperate? Obviously you didn’t read my link. It’s doesn’t say anywhere that Xiradou’s work should be discredited. It merely shows how the FRC and othes are misusing Xiradou’s findings.
And guess what, I don’t care about the other sources. If one is proven to be this egregiously misleading, the gig is up. The FRC used this particular study to make this claim:
This was a study about the spread of HIV in Amsterdam. They excluded men who had not had at least two partners in the previous six months. Using this study as a basis for the duration of homosexual unions is like using Hugh Hefner’s hot tub to study Mormon marriage. Face it, the FRC study is a joke, propaganda from a hate group. The fact you’d actually post that as evidence is just sad, Aye. Man, i am seriously disappointed in you.
You ducked my question again.
@Tom:
Dood…
Do you really think you can win an argument by ignoring the source material that is put before you simply because you don’t like the people that gathered it all into a central location?
As I have told you before, there are multiple sources there, several of which are actually homosexual themselves, yet you conveniently ignore them simply because you think that you can discredit Xiridou.
Maybe in the world of the feeble minded that would work for you.
@Aye:
Again (third time) no one is discrediting Xiradou. It’s not Xiradou’s fault that the FRC took the findings of a medical study on HIV infected people in Amsterdam and tried to spin it as universal evidence of how “committed” gay unions don’t last very long. It’s clearly dishonest. If not dishonest, than it’s inept research and therefore flawed. Either way, why would anyone believe, let alone, cite, a study that’s been proven to be critically unsound?
I wonder if at any other time in history a group has done “scientific studies” in an attempt to justify bigotry and perhaps more? Hmmm…. I wonder.
Still ducking the question?
Just throwing in my own two-cents as a former, active Digger, to reassure you folks that not ALL diggers are liberal moonbats.
I persevered in arguments for a good long while before giving up. One can only deal with a closed minded horde for so long before burning out. I tried real hard to debate reasonably with folks who’s favorite weapons included the strawman, lazy thinking, out of context quotes, ‘Gotcha’ quotes, DURR REPUBITARD and HURR LIBTARD, and the infamous Broad Brush treatment – example: Here’s a picture of a misspelled sign at a tea party rally! This means all tea-partiers and their sympathizers are knuckle dragging cavemen who beat their wives!
To their credit, there are reasonable folks on digg, but it’s like searching for a needle in a haystack. When I went in wanting to debate issues and solutions, I got a flurry of people eager to score points and get positive votes on their comments. Most of my comment battle was spent parrying and countering ad hominem and strawmen. It got real old, real quick, and so I dropped the site months ago.
I was impressed by the regular commenters here. Maybe I’ll stick around a bit because I am -starved- for actual critical thought.
@TheDougem:
Welcome! We and our quiet cyber friends, are happy to have you!
First of all Tom, I don’t duck questions. You’ve been around long enough and had your azz mercilessly kicked by me often enough to know that.
I’ll get to your question once we finish with the matter of the FRC/Xiridou. We’ve got plenty of time. Right now, you’re just using that in an attempt to obfuscate the issue that we’re discussing.
Stay focused.
Now, the source you cited, that Burroway guy, makes several claims regarding the Amsterdam Cohort Studies:
He then makes a claim about Xiridou’s work:
He based that claim on his unsubstantiated claims regarding ACS as listed above.
Now, if you truly wanted to be taken seriously you would have recognized that my criticism of your source material was valid way back in #149.
Here are the Amsterdam Cohort Studies. Here’s the Xiridou study.
What you need to do, if you wish to be taken seriously, is get busy digging into those two sources to see if what Burroway is saying is true since he didn’t choose to show you his work.
Your buddy Burroway further claims that the Cohort Studies ended in 1999 when they have clearly continued into 2009 and perhaps further.
Finally, your buddy Burroway cites the Duker study (his source 6), which limited its’ control group to specific parameters in an effort to establish the parameters of the ACS.
Really weak stuff there and easily proven to be “egregiously misleading” so I guess your “gig is up”, eh?
[Edited to add: The purpose of the Xiridou study was to compare/contrast the disease transmission rates of committed/monogamous versus with non-committed/non-monogamous (polygamous?) men.
If the ACS excluded monogamous men, as Burroway claims, then how were Xiridou and her fellow researchers able to conduct their compare/contrast study and extrapolate the data to arrive at their findings, and how did said findings survive peer review and get published in a professional medical research journal if they were so fundamentally flawed as to have excluded monogamous men?
So, yes, by asserting that the ACS excluded monogamous men, Burroway is indeed attempting to discredit the work of Xiridou despite your claims to the contrary.]
Yes, you’re right. The Leftists do have a long, checkered, and shameful past when it comes to trying to justify bigotry and other things.
Once we get past this FRC matter, I’ll cite some of those Leftist heroes for you.
Now, a couple of housecleaning matters:
The FRC article is NOT a “study.”
It is simply an amalgamation of multiple sources and research studies related to monogamy, or lack thereof, in homosexual relationships. The individual sources are valid on a stand alone basis so, no, the information published in the FRC article has not been debunked as you so desperately wish to claim.
So far, all you’ve got is this one guy, Burroway, of unknown qualifications, who has spoken up on his blog and said “It ain’t true” sans proof, analysis, or exposition and you’ve responded with “Yeah! That’s right!”
I see a lot of bunk in your posts but not a lot of de-bunk.
Not good enough Tommy boy. Not nearly good enough.
Now, wipe the side of your chin before that drips on your keyboard.
Tom, how many Conservatives do you know or have you known? I ask because it sure seems like your life experience is very shallow. In fact, if you actually believe what you said about Conservatives above, then you are little more than a bigot that has an unjustifiably high opinion of himself.
The Dougem, hi, welcome, you belong here with us, and you will love the regulars.
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
They must have been drawn like moths to the flame, rather than bees to honey.
Gary Kukis, yes, it’s more appropriate,
@Aye:
Thank you, Aye
@Tom:
This is brilliant, on the one hand, Tom, you defend the noble homosexual, and, on the other, you say that 50-60% of homophobic right wingers are homos, as if that is something bad.
In essence, you are saying: “You don’t like homosexuality…well, then, you’re the big homo, that’s what you are!” Absolutely brilliant!
What is weird is, this is not the first time I have heard a staunch defender of homosexuality turn around and then call someone a homo, as a pejorative.
@Aye:
So what would give a person any reason to believe this ‘amalgamation’ is in any way representative of reality? I guess I’m going to have to actually explain to this to you. If the Yankees wanted to prove Micky Mantle was the best hitter of the 50s and the Giants wanted to prove it was Willie Mays, wouldn’t they both independently marshal data and facts that, looked at discretely, might convince someone of their validity, while being in direct contradiction of each other because ALL the data from both studies isn’t included in both studies? It’s called cherry-picking data, Aye. You really think the FRC, with their big ole anti-gay agenda, combed through all the hundreds of studies out there and did a fair and balanced assessment of the data? Or did they just select the data that fit their conclusion? I wonder which is more likely. Do you honestly think any academic worth his salt would look at this and think it’s a fair assessment of ALL the data? Put another way, if High Times Magazine published “The Health Benefits of Pot”, would you consider the work to be bias-free?
Leaving the FRC thing’s validity aside for a moment, you still haven’t explained how anything in this study justifies denying equal rights to gay people.
@TheDougem:
Glad to have you with us. I have been here a year or so. There are a variety of excellent postings with good discussions, which rarely turn ugly, even though, many of us, being conservatives or libertarians, will certainly disagree about things.
To me, if I call someone a name, I am admitting that I am unable to come up with a good solid counter-argument.
@Hard Right:
I have plenty of conservative friends. I can’t imagine why you would think otherwise. Do you have some sort of political litmus test for your friends? Do you have friends?
@Tom:
I’ve read your most recent scribbling twice and nowhere in there did I find anything answering, or even attempting to refute, my analysis in #155
You really need to raise the intellectual level of your responses.
Care to try again? Perhaps, this time, your dog can help.
@Aye:
Believe it or not, I’m one of those rare liberals who is not on welfare. I have a job and don’t have time to delve into your questions right now. Anytime you want to respond to one of mine, be my guest. This is turning into more of an interrogation than a dialogue, as you’ve yet to answer anything I’ve asked.
I can tell you’re fired up though. I know you’re super proud of springing your little traps (you know, that thing you constantly do where you ask a question, holding back something in reserve to use in a later “gotcha!” post). It was fun taking a page from your book and seeing your sputtering responses last night when I undressed your hate-group propaganda as a sham. gotcha, indeed.
@Tom:
I find it hard to believe you have Conservative friends considering how you view Conservatives. Not to mention how utterly ignorant you are when it comes to our beliefs.
Do I have friends? Amusing question. Of course I have friends. I do have standards for people I call friends and no I don’t make friends with flaming moonbats. Moderates, yes. Is it so terrible for me to want to associate with people that have similar values?
BTW, you missed answering part of the question I asked you. Do you believe the things about Conservatives you posted above?
I’m asking because you came here to attack us for defending ourselves against the slander of those on your side of the aisle who blamed us for the Tucson shooting. You tried to spin it by saying WE were the ones blaming all liberals. Unsurprisingly you gave those on the left doing the slandering a pass.
Sooooo, on the one hand you claimed to have a problem with broad brush painting of your side, but have no problem calling us racists, chauvinists, homophobes, and xenophobes. Like I said, if you truly believe that of us, then your “alleged” Conservative friends (if they exist) don’t know you.
@Tom:
Sputtering? Got me? Fired up?
Yeah, only in your mind bro.
More like amused. I laid out the FRC source and you took the bait. You weren’t even smart enough to realize what was happening to you.
Hook. Line. Sinker.
Now, once you successfully address post #155 we may be able to move forward.
Your points. Your onus.
@Hard Right:
Unbelievable. HR, you ask me a question, insinuating that I’m probably too close-minded to know any conservatives, let alone have friends that don’t toe the same ideological line, and then you come right out and admit you choose your friends based on their politics. You walk right into your own trap. You would not make a very good lawyer.
Tying this into the topic at hand, do you have any gay friends, HR? See, I have conservative friends, but they’re probably not quite as conservative as you. One of my best friends is a cop, and while he’s certainly more conservative than I am, he doesn’t seem to have a problem with the fact I have friends who are gay. So, perhaps that gives you some insight into why I do find things like the FRC study personally offensive. What if I told you that some of your friends, people in committed relationships, some actually married (yes, some states allow that), were 99% likely to be unfaithful, and all the baggage that term implies? And how do I know this? Well, I read it on the internet, on a site that just happens to preach hatred about my friends. These are well-educated individuals in good jobs, paying taxes, contributing to society in positive ways, mind you. How would you feel if I casually passed that judgment on your friends, HR?
@Dougem – Welcome to FA. I too found a comfortable cyber home here at FA. I left Blogcatalog because the moderators over there were decidedly and unabashedly biased in applying their rules of debate to only the Conservatives. In other words, the libs got away with the attacks, personal and otherwise while the Conservatives got called to the carpet time and time again.
It got old, and after BC eliminated their politics category I left.
Again, welcome to FA and here’s to seeing you drop by more often.
/cheers
Here’s some additions to the “Say What?”
Liberal & Conservative don’t believe in evolution Unfortunately I can’t find a clip showing D.L. Hughley throwing in that he doesn’t believe in evolution, but it happened.
Bill O’Reilly doesn’t understand why the tides come in and out, how the moon got there, or why the sun rises and sets Does he know why the sky is blue? Why things fall to the earth? Why warm air rises?
The way you interpret my answers is very telling there Tom
I said no flaming moonbats. Moderates, yes. In other words I don’t associate with extremists. Tell me Tom, would you be friends with someone who seriously thinks Bush should be taken out and shot? You further assume I run them thru a political litmus test when I say similar values. Actually by that I mean no-drug use, no racism, no criminal activity, no anti-semitism, no liars, etc.
Tom, you came here because of the Tucson shooting, not because of “gay bashing” as you (falsely) claim is taking place . You even said you didn’t care about people like yourself slandering us. It’s clear you didn’t because you think Conservatives deserve it. You’ve pigeon holed everyone here without having a clue about what Conservative values are. Because we’ve been around long enough to have dealt with many people like yourself, we know what your values are.
BTW Tom, I don’t have a problem with gay people. So another assumption of yours goes down the drain.
So tell me, do your allegedly Conservative friends know you see them as racists, chauvinists, xenophobes and homophobes?
@Hard Right:
No drug-use Hard Right? Do you drink alcohol?
Concerned, hi, do you pretend to know everything, before bashing other people?
you have a lot to learn, and you should never judge other from what they seem to not know a particular subject, they still would be smarter than you at the end,
knowledge is not the intelligence,you have to learn that
@Hard Right:
Then why call yourself “Far Right”? Aren’t you putting yourself on the fringe by virtue of your own nickname?
Edit: Whoops, “Hard Right”, mean. I admit, that’s less extreme. I retract this question.
Where are getting that I see all conservatives as sharing that laundry list? You need to be a more careful reader, HR. Just because I believe Hitler was, politically/philosophically speaking, on the Far Right, it doesn’t necessarily follow that think all on the Far Right are Hitlers.
I’m glad to hear that. I would love to see you jump into this debate more forcefully. People will respect your conservative voice on the issue of gay marriage more, obviously, than they have mine.
Hard Right, yes if TOM’s friends would know how he feel about them and still hang around them,
what would they think he is.
TOM, YOU MISSPOKE AS USUAL, NOT FAR RIGHT, CHECK AGAIN
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Yes, there’s no getting around it. I did acknowledge the error already, if you look above.
TOM, okay, the next beer is on me, be good
@Tom:
Where’s your source material to support that contention Tom?
Was it Hitler’s belief in national health care that makes him “Far Right”? Was it his belief in nationalized businesses? How about his belief in the sterilization/elimination of the handicapped and the infirm? Do those things put him on the “Far Right”?
What, precisely, puts Hitler on the “Far Right” in your mind? I’d love to hear you attempt to square the circle you’ve drawn for yourself. Please lay it out for us.
Of course, there’s not really any way you can do that based in fact or in logic.
By the way, post #155 still awaits you.
Why are you ducking and dodging?
Now, if you wish to concede those points then we can move on to other things.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
If you’re defending this level of willful ignorance, I can see we have no common ground on which to continue a conversation.
@Tom:
Your post #118 Tom
Here’s a blurb very much in context with the post:
Concerned, never did an illegal drug in my life. Never abused prescription meds either. I drink sometimes. Are you going to try and say I am a hypocrite for not wanting to be around people using drugs? Or are you going to say I’m a hypocrite because I drink while thinking narcotics like cocaine should remain illegal? A blend of the two perhaps?
@Hard Right:
I’m just trying to understand your position that you aren’t friends with drug users. With respect to alcohol, is it the fact that it’s legal that makes it ok? Or are you drawing the conclusion based on evidence that states that alcohol is, I don’t know how to phrase this, more acceptable? What do you think about legality? Do you think the law should be followed even if you disagree with it?
@Aye:
The Dodger is back, still expecting me to answer ten questions before he’ll answer one. I will get to your questions when I have time. It’s a shame that you can’t be equally candid and let us all know exactly where you stand on this issue.
@concerned:
Wouldn’t it be so much fun to get caught in a car with a friend that just happened to have ….illegal drugs in the car? Or stop by his house just before nice, friendly officers knock and shout “open the door, police!”
In smaller communities they publish that stuff in the newspapers, would that not be a great find for…..someone’s boss to read? How about the parents of your kids friends, wouldn’t that look good?
@Tom:
Well, you see, I am being “equally candid.”
You’ve failed repeatedly, and miserably, at supporting any of the points you’ve raised at all.
Over and over again, I’ve pointed out that you keep raising new questions and new points of discussion/contention rather than dealing with the ones that you’ve raised previously.
I’ve also told you over and over again that I will be more than happy to address all of your questions once we deal with the FRC/Xiridou issue.
What we’re seeing here is your modus operandi, your technique…you raise multiple points, you toss out multiple unfounded, baseless arguments in a scatter shot pattern attempting to see what might possibly stick to the wall, and, if that won’t work, then you attempt to inaccurately quote or ascribe positions or opinions to your debate opponents that have never been stated.
Then, when pinned down on a point that you’ve made and held accountable for it, you attempt to divert or distract or obfuscate or stonewall or change the subject or re-frame the argument in a desperate effort to just make it all go away…all the while whining that the person you’re debating is dodging or ducking when, in fact, it is you who is doing so.
We’ve seen it over and over and over again from you.
I understand that the queries are pointed. I understand that the questions are difficult. I understand that you won’t be able to figure out the answers by using all of your fingers and toes.
I also understand that that is what happens when you choose to swim in the deep end of the pool with the grown ups.
If you’re not up to the task, that’s OK…just admit that…because the bluff and bluster and blather isn’t working out so well for you.
Now, kindly address the points that I raised in #155 or simply concede that I am correct on those points and we’ll just move on.
@concerned:
In no particular order:
1) I don’t want to be around drug users due to the potential for bad things to happen. Police raid, other drug users coming around with bad intent, overdose, etc.
2) Too many users commit crimes to support their habit and they usually have no problem victimizing friends and family.
3) It’s not uncommon for users to be paranoid or even violent.
As far as alcohol, it should be illegal. However, it isn’t. The fact it is not illegal isn’t right or wrong, it simply is. I also don’t think that because one bad drug is legal, that means even worse drugs should be legal too.
FYI, I don’t hang around alcoholics either.
concerned, you are wrong, I never want a followed conversation with you;
bye expressing my comment, I was trying to educate you on a very important reality ,
@Aye:
I commend your patience. This was Standard Operating Procedure for a lot of folks on Digg. They raise a point, I respond, try to back myself up, think things out. If I included a ‘buzz word’ in my response – lots of folks would just seize that, run with it, and never let it go.
Tom, allow me to ask you this directly – why wont you address the point of #155? What is your specific issue with addressing the question? Is it that difficult to suck it up and examine the source material objectively?
EDIT: oops, had two reply markers instead of one.
@TheDougem:
Dougman,
I’ve said twice already I will get to it when i have sufficient time to give it all the time it’s going to take. As much as Aye likes to claim I jump from point to point, I could make a counter-claim that he likes to bury an argument in minutia. He’s going to keep drilling in on this thing, sandbagging the discussion, until he (rightly) assumes I’ll walk away in disgust. Then he can claim victory without ever showing his hand. Meanwhile, no one has even bothered to supply pertinent information such as, why is this a compelling reason to deny gays the right to be married? Could it be because there are huge gaping holes in the scope (where are the women?) 0r could it be because no one has a valid argument linking the right to marriage and a person’s private life.
Don’t worry, we’ll get there eventually. I’m going to take a few vacation days so we can wrap up the FRC study first.
@ilovebeeswarzone: My concern is with Bill O’Reilly’s knowledge of reality.
My apologies for the continued name switching – I left the info on this computer with the musicmangp moniker and didn’t notice until after 2 posts. I’ll be sticking with this name from now on if that’s fine with everyone.
@Aye:
That’s an obvious typo, as Burroway writes later, “everyone over the age of thirty was excluded from the study” It’s one of the main points of his argument. Straight from the Xiridou study:
Well, I am not seeing that claim. You may be referring to years of data from the Cohort study that were included in Xiridou’s study, which are explicitly stated in Xiridou References:
Now if you look again at information Burroway provided regarding the Cohort participants, you will see this:
(Before you ask, I will provide the source of this claim below.)
This, of course, ties in with Burraway’s statement that “everyone over the age of thirty was excluded from the study”. It all ties together in three places
1) in Xiradou Parameter Estimation (see above)
2) In the Cohort Overview, where I assume Burroway’s got his protocol information, which states the following:
The terminated study included the over 30 participants.
3) And in the References, which state the data was taken from the Cohort study 1996-2000, which, as has been demonstrated, included only men under 30 (see Cohort Overview).
One of Burroway’s main arguments is that, “By keeping the age of the sample population artificially low, this artificially limits the length of time any of them could have been in a “steady relationship”.” As far as I’m concerned, he’s established the age range in the study.
Does that answer your question?
@Aye – I would like to take for granted, for the time being, that the data you present are valid. (I am following your references for the time being and if I have any issue with the data, then I’ll bring it up when I get to it). What I would like to ask is: what is the conclusion you’ve drawn from these data? What position are you justifying with these data? In a blunt way – what is your point?
musicmangp, I read that, yes, your new name tell me that you love music, or
you have a natural talent to create some. but I might be wrong.
good luck with your new name
@Hard Right:
I can understand your sentiment, partly; I, for a long time, avoided people who did any kind of drugs, only really out of fear of some kind of charges being brought against me. I take it from some of these comments, that you’re not a libertarian?
I have a question – what kinds of things do you think liberals promote that don’t fit libertarian ideology? I feel as of late that I’ve seen more rhetoric classifying conservatives as libertarian, but it’s never been apparent to me from the actions of popular/public conservatives.
musicmangp:
I’ll try to keep this brief.
No I’m not a libertarian. From my experience most libertarians are socially liberal but fiscally Conservative. Today’s “liberals” are neither liberal or libertarian. A point of clarification, I am talking about leftists when I say liberal or progressive. Liberals want to tell people how to think, how to live, how to behave, and what rights they should have. Add to that a far left ideology, semi-authoritarian bent rooted in elitism/narcissism, and you have someone who is anything BUT a true liberal.
Now I’m sure someone will reply with claims that the GOP is run by Bible thumpers who want to tell people how to live and deny rights to others-abortion, gay marriage. One big problem with that argument is that they do not run the party and are in fact a minority that doesn’t have a lot of power by themselves. Currently there is a debate as to whether or not gay marriage is in fact a right. Abortion tends to fall under the same question as gay marriage even for Conservatives.
For me, abortion and gay marriage are state’s rights issues. The Roe vs. Wade ruling was an overreach by the SCOTUS. Such decisions are the domain of the states, not the SC and I’m bothered by the Constitutional violation.
With that said I think abortion should be banned except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, I want the morning after pill and other means to immediately prevent unwanted pregnancies to be readily available to those that want them. My hope is that individuals would be alert enough and responsible enough to use them after sexual activity. If not, too bad. We are far too cavalier about murdering the unborn.
Gay marriage? I used to be neutral on it, believe it or not. Once I saw the radical left jump on board with their bullying tactics they pushed me into the no category. Now if my home state of AZ decided that it was a right, I could live with it.
Most Conservatives I speak with or chat with feel the same as I do and we don’t want to force these beliefs on others. We want to persuade people to agree with us and not impose our views on everyone via legislation or judicial activism.
@Tom:
I know you have a lot going here, but I really would like a response to this.
You said that in post 118. Do you see Conservatives like that?
Hard Right, hi, I think there are so many lies type and said about CONSERVATIVES,
that thoses who want to see the tolerance of the party and the group,
just have to listen to the words they never change the agenda, the foundation is preserved,
and whoever come to challenge here get their cup full if they are proven to ask question and go back to their own public to distort what they learn from the ever ready CONSERVATIVES to explain their views,
I must say that the true patriots are the CONSERVATIVES who will if the demand call for it they will protect their fellows AMERICANS without asking what party they are in, the CONSERVATIVES are no doubt the protecters of this AMERICA and IT’s high time that someone publicly honor them.
as I am doing just observing THE CONSERVATIVES of AMERICA, LET IT BE KNOWN ALL OVER THIS NATION, FROM NOW ON, they show that THEY deserve to be respected and PRAISE for their DILIGENCE on PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION AS IT was written and as it was effective all these CENTURYS.
Thank you Bees. We aren’t perfect, but we try to do the right thing and we love our country enough to defend it with our lives. We want equal opportunity, not equal outcome and we feel that adhering to the Constitution is the way to do that.
@Hard Right:
How many conservatives are pro gay-marriage? Seems to me that every anti gay-marriage conservative is saying which rights gay people should have. What position do liberals take that takes away someones rights?
And Missy – is prayer in school forbidden? By which I mean, is a person not allowed on their own to pray to themselves in the public school system? I have no problem with that level of prayer – if an individual wants to pray, let them do so. I don’t think the argument has ever been about that.
@musicman: You said:
I am not for marriage being defined by the Federal Government. Personally, I believe it is between one man and one woman. On the other hand, I believe that if a gay couple wants to have their relationship recognized by society, and thereby obtaining the benefits of the traditional marriage, then let it be called a civil union. Then gay couples could get lower insurance rates, not be barred from ICU’s that allow family only, etc…
How is that point of view denying gay people anything? And further, what rights do gay people have, as defined in our founding documents? I believe those are the same rights we all have; those that are endowed by our Creator.
You also said:
Well, don’t you think that abortion is denying the right to life from the baby? I mean that child never asked to be brought into this world. It is obviously not able to defend its own rights. The left argues that the government ought not interfere and tell a woman what to do with her body. Tell me music, how does that statement help to defend the rights of the baby?
Have you ever seen video of an abortion? When the needle approaches the fetus, he or she feels the pain and can be seen on the video trying to get away from the needle. Tell me, music. Could you do that to a child of yours? Do you think that is compassionate? Taking into account what I have just laid out, do you still think that what a woman wants to do with her body trumps that of the baby’s?
Please tell me that you are different from our regular moonbats and will not run and hide when confronted with legitimate questions.
@anticsrocks:
That’s certainly an approach you could take. But as such, marriage is an institution recognized by the government that gives people certain rights. Civil Unions sounds like separate but equal to me, and why would I expect it to work any better this time? There’s no point in the distinction. The language of the constitution has been rectified before, and it needs to be rectified again. Marriage should be defined as a union between 2 people. Otherwise, we’re giving rights to some, and not to others. Want to take marriage out of the government entirely? I wouldn’t disagree with that. But you can’t give it to some and not others.
If you don’t believe marriage should be an institution recognized with special privileges by the federal government, then it wouldn’t be denying them anything. However, as it stands, it’s denying them the rights that straight couples have.
I’m not sure what you mean. It sounds like you’re saying gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, since it would be ridiculous to single them out in the langugae of our founding documents – but that’s what you’re proposing by suggesting gays should get civil unions instead of marriages.
You believe they’re endowed by our creator, I believe they’re endowed by our existence.
I won’t deny for a second that it’s denying the right to life of the baby – which is why I’m for sensible abortion law such as suggested by Hard Right:
I wouldn’t go so far as to say people in general are being too cavalier about murdering the unborn. Maybe some of you see it that way, but what I see is legislation from the GOP to attempt to redefine rape. Forcible rape? Rape is by definition forcible. Now – aggravated rape? Is that different? Sure, in that the person should probably now be charged with both rape and assault.
@musicmangp:
As I stated before, there is a debate as to whether or not gay marriage is a right. You automatically assume it is. I do not. I think it is to be determined.
As for what rights the left wants to take away: Freedom of speech, 2nd amendment rights are two that immediately come to mind.
To clarify my abortion position, by immediately after sexual activity I mean that night, the next day, or within the next 1-2 weeks.
HR, I know i still owe you an answer on post #197, but I just wanted to quickly jump in here, because i think Musicmangp is delivering this point in much more efficient and less contentious manner than perhaps I did. The “limited government/maximum freedom” sounds great in theory, but in practice i see little evidence of its existence in practical terms. Gay marriage is a such a great example, because marriage is almost universally thought of as being a good thing for society, and arbitrarily denying it to one group would seemingly go completely against that conservative creed I quoted above. So what principle is driving the organized anti-gay marriage crusade? Why would some propose to change the constitution itself to define marriage as being between a man and a women and therefore use government as a tool to deny certain individuals their freedom? And how would two individuals getting married have a negative impact upon a third person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Tom, I myself am not interested in re-defining anything.
When people say marriage is a plus for society I would say they mean between a man and a woman. Children are the future (blah, blah, blah) and research has shown a mother and father being present is usually optimal.
I question as to whether marriage is a right for non reproductive couples (due to being of the same gender). I definitely take exception to the behavior of those upset by people voting their opinion. If they want things changed try persuading people and not terrorizing them.
anticsrocks, hi SR, I think your comment is so weldone that nobody can challenge anything from it. thank you for that, YOU’r ONE of the many reason I love my blog , FA is full of smart classy people,
bye
musicmangp and TOM, check with CURT’s on 148 for LARRY’s post, to get another of your quest to learn more ofwhat you want to know,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I read his post.
The arguments (and data provided) for making a distinction are irrelevant and prejudicial. I don’t care how many statistics you have, assigning their significance to 2 individual people based on the qualification that they are the same sex and wish to get married is prejudicial.
That being said, if civil unions were defined as “exactly the same as marriage, but allowing any 2 people, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation” I would be fine with it. I have a very hard time believing, seeing as how his entire point is that a distinction needs to be made, that the language would be so clear cut.
If you want a distinction in the language, there will be distinction in the law. The simplest, fastest, most efficient way to assure everyone is afforded the same privileges is to state, in plain language, that the states do not have the right to discriminate in any way based on the sexual orientation or gender of an individual.
musicmangd, hi, that’s exactly what LARRY was saying ,CIVIL UNIONS the same but not the word MARRIAGE, but the same priviledges, THAT’s what I read of this post,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Just to be clear, Larry was advocating civil unions; my argument is that advocating civil unions is advocating discrimination.
musicmangd, what do you want me to say on that point, you’r free to think what you want , and the GAY
community are also free to want their unions reconnize, but they are marginal and they know it,
they are suffering for it too, so why should we add to their pains, just drop the subject and they will be happyer if the public leave them alone, until they find a resolution to that dilemma that we cannot
resolve ,as non GOVERNMENT expert and not in position of deciding,
@music: You said:
So just by being alive, we get certain rights? Okay, so if that is true, then define what a “right” is, please. And BTW, thank you for answering my questions. It is refreshing to actually have a conversation, rather than put up with talking points, obfuscation and lies.
@ilovebees – Thank you very much!
The cons keep saying that liberals want to tell them how to live, but of course it’s the conservatives who are doing that very thing to gay people.
And it is always the conservative who accuses someone who disagrees with him of treason or sedition.
Conservatives think they own this country.
ROUGY, where does your hate come from, not here for sure, then perhaps from the liberals,
stop your spitting bad words, it make you look so ugly
@rougy:
Yeah, roughy, you’re right………not!
Who added a $1 tax on tobbacco?
Democrats.
Who are taking soft drinks, cup cakes, snacks out of the schools?
Democrats.
Who want to control the web (think what happened last week in Egypt) ?
Democrats.
Who wants to tax sodas and even flavored waters?
Democrats.
Who eats FATTY Kobe Beef while trying to impose salt levels and even portion sizes on Americans?
Democrats.
Who wants to forbid the sale of BBQ coals while eating BBQ?
Democrats.
And all you care about are homosexuals?
Why?
Homosexuals live all over my city.
They have banners every gay month.
They have an annual Gay Parade here.
They can do whatever they want.
Free meds for AIDS.
A few advocacy centers and thrift shops.
But you know what?
I haven’t met even one happy gay person in all my years in Long Beach, CA.
Not one.
People make their own happiness.
@Nan G:
An increased tax on soda? You win. I can live with denying gay people equal rights, but I can’t live with marginally more expensive soda. Liberals are truly evil!
@Tom:
Oh, and I forgot the $.06/mile new tax on all electric cars (15,000/year = $90.00 tax)
Democrats.
Go to a lawyer and you can get every ”right” associated with marriage, if you want to without marriage.
I know people who have done this.
@
what if I’m old fashioned and just want a good old fashioned marriage?
Then find a person of the opposite sex. That is what a “good old fashioned marriage” constitutes.
@anticsrocks:
It’s amazing you’re offering same sex advice. considering you’re not gay (worrying about whether you are gay is considered pretty gay (by gay people (by the way)))
@Tom: I’m quite happy, thank you.
Oh! You meant gay as in homosexual. Nope, sorry. I firmly believe that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, but thanks for thinking of me. I am flattered.
@musicmangp:
I wasn’t talking about organized prayer in public schools. I was responding to Tom’s accusation that “the right” was trying to control it. My response was similar to what you just said:
@Missy:
Prayer in school is under attack as numerous incidents have proven. Walk through the halls at your nearest HS or middle school, listen to the language that’s tolerated. Heaven forbid should a student utter a prayer, that’s to remain silent.
@alejo699:
No one is stopping you from doing the same thing. But follow your own advice. I do get transcripts or copy down exactly what people say from videotape. You can google any of these and get the entire quotation if you so desire.
Is there a problem with quoting what people actually say??
@Hard Right:
Hi, HR,
I think the problem here is, you cannot unring a bell. Alcohol will never be made illegal again.
I have the same concerns that you do about making drugs legal, and much of this is based upon that same point….once any drug is made legal, it will not be made illegal…simply because, you cannot unring a bell.
@Tom:
You have been given dozens of reasons here.
Let’s see if I can summarize one line of thinking:
Society has has the institution of marriage in essentially every single culture involving one man and one woman over the past 5000 years. Any deviation from this has been clearly a deviation.
Since marraige between one man and one woman has stood for this long without any need for it to be changed; that this institution often results in children and families; this institution provides a natural protection and provision for the woman and the chldren; and that a relationship between a man and a woman is unique–no male-male relationship is the same and no female-femaile relationship is the same; and children raised in the home with a male father and a female father are exposed to specifically one male father and one female mother. Furthermore, the act of infidelity can be one of most damaging things that one partner can do within the marriage. Let me add some things I don’t believe have been mentioned yet. It is not unusual for a man and a woman to both be virgins at marriage…it used to be more true 40 years ago, but it still occurs, and it is not as rare as people want you to think it is.
With a homoseuxal couple, they cannot produce children; there is no reason why the union specifically protects one person or the other; even children under a homosexual relationship are not exposed to the male father and the female mother; this is not an institution which is found in virtually every nation for all of human history; and since there is no premium placed upon fidelity….why is there any reason to call this a marriage. Oh, and no homoseuxal couple who have dedicated themselves to one another for life entered that relationship as a virgin and remained a virgin until they decided to make this a lifetime commitment. So, why not call such a union, oh, I don’t know, a domestic partnership? Why does it have to have the name “marriage” applied to it when there is very little in common between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage, apart from the fact that this involves 2 people? Since it is a unique sort of relationship, why not give it its own name?
@Gary – Wonderfully put.
@Tom:
Tom, if you are out here in CA, you can find a dozen churches that will take you though those motions.
I have even been to a few of these.
The only difference is that the statement that the minister usually adds a bout having the authority to do all this BY the state of California is left out.
Go, if you want to, what stops you?
Maybe because I turned him down?
lol, just kidding. That wasn’t meant as an insult, just having a bit of fun.
If I follow your logic, we should blindly honor tradition. So I assume you are against women working outside the home? How about women voting? You do realize you’re using one of the classic anti-suffragist arguments, don’t you? Well, at least you’re recycling. Sadly, you’re incapable of grasping the concept that things can be improved and that rights can be wronged.
And I hate to break the news to you, Gary, but most newly weds are hardly virgins.
Here’s an idea: Just admit you don’t like gay people and you don’t want to condone their lifestyle in any official manner. Seeing you come up with ridiculous reasons (like they’re not virgins when they get married!) is tiresome. It’s obviously all about punitive control over their lives because they don’t measure up to your Judeo-Christian ideal. Do you derive pleasure from punishing people you’ve likely never met? I am not saying you are one, but I’m pretty sure there are plenty of sadists in the anti-gay movement. Why they would care otherwise is beyond me.
@Hard Right:
HR, first I think you should look at what I just wrote to Gary for my feelings on this topic. Second, I don’t think all conservatives are like this, but certainly I don’t see very many liberals fighting against the rights of gay people. I can tell your heart is in the right place, so I ask you to consider being a conservative voice of reason when it comes to the question of gay marriage. There are many fine conservatives already there. Surveys show that young people are much more likely to be pro-gay rights, so this ship has pretty much sailed. Be on the right side of history. Don’t be be like others here, individuals who have written things under their name that 50 years from now people will think “I can’t believe anyone actually once felt like that”.
Why, when gay couples can get a civil union and have all the same rights as married couples, do they insist on forcing their views, wants, etc… onto a religious institution such as marriage?
Tom, why do you feel the need to have our Federal Government weigh in on this? First of all, it should be a states’ rights issue and secondly, the government needs to stay out of religion. I mean isn’t that what the left is always saying about the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn? …the Ten Commandments in Town Hall? …prayer in school?
That is certainly a compelling argument. Can I assume you therefore disagree with the 1967 supreme court decision in Loving v. Virginia, which declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional?
Obviously we’re discussing legal recognition.
@Hard Right:
My problem with gay marriage is this: (1) It barely represents what a real marriage is and (2) gay marriage is not the end game. Once the term “marriage” is applied to a gay relationship, then we are going to see so many court cases and changes to our society, that our heads will spin. Pastors who teach what the Bible says about homosexuality will face suits because this will become hate speech. Homosexual unions will have to become in ingrainted part of education, going all the way down to kindergarterners. They will read stories with a family represented by a gay couple. Throughout grammar school, kids will be quizzed as to whether they are straight or gay. This has already occurred in other countries. In my opinion, part of the intent from many gays is to get younger kids involved in gay sex, to just check it out. When a child is 8 or 10, it is easy to confuse him about his sexuality.
This is an extreme evil and it will change our society in more ways than we can imagine.
@musicmangp:
Where in the constitution is being married a right? Where in the constitution is it a right to have a piece of paper defining whatever relationship you choose to have being classified by the federal government a marriage? And why does it have to be 2 people?
In every society for 5 or 6000 years of recorded human history, marriage has been between a man and a woman, and this allows protections for the woman and any children who become a part of this family. There is a premium placed upon fidelity where even the Bible allows for a divorce only in the case of adultery. In many states, adultery can determine fault when it comes to the disillusion of a marriage. None of these things related to a homosexual union, which is shorter in duration, does not protect the weaker member of the union, and does not protect children who are born to the couple. Furthermore, fidelity is barely a consideration to a homosexual couple.
Calling something a right does not make it a right. Cleverly manipulating language in such a way to call something a right, does not make it a right.
In the Delcaration of Independence, rights are few and innumerated. In liberaland, a right is anything a liberal can somehow twist into a phrase. There is no right to marriage and there is no right to call your non-marriage relationship a marriage.
@Tom:
The Bible speaks of women working outside of the homes and the Bible deals with the property rights of women, so the idea that these things have been traditional denied to women is ridiculous. It just means you know very little about human history.
Now, with regards to women voting, with the exception of 2 gals who post here, I could be persuaded about that one way or the other. You know that, remove the women from voting, and almost all of our presidents would have been conservatives.
I am looking at human civilization for marriage and family, which are fundamental institutions, even in communist and Muslim countries. You want to look back 50 or 60 years in the United States, and call that human history.
WHY does that relationship NEED to be call MARRIAGE??????? It isn’t. Call it by another name. Leave marriage to people who understand what a marriage really is. I will guarantee you, even if marriage was outlawed between men and women, or if the government decided not to recognize that word, there would be marriages between men and women. It is the natural way of things. There is nothing natural about homosexuality.
I don’t hate homosexuals, by the way, but I will admit, the practice grosses me out.
I’m not sure what the bible has to do with this. Are we talking about your personal religious beliefs, or the legal definition of marriage in the United States?
Gary, your rhetoric has drifted quite far away from what you wrote earlier on this thread, “On the far, far right, there is no government. Every man for himself. On the far right is libertarianism.” It seems like now you’re advocating laws based on your own personal religious interpretation of history. The bible is your litmus test? I’m starting to think you’re a fundamentalist Christian who yearns for an American Christian theocracy.
Do you realize your arguments against gay marriage line up almost perfectly with the arguments used in anti-miscegenation legislation:
Would you care to share where you land on that topic Gary?
Again, Gary, how do you square your ambivalence about womans’ voting rights with your alleged Conservative libertarianism? I have to wonder what century exactly you’d take this country back to, and how many civil liberties would be erased, if it were in your power to do so.
Because if it’s another name, it’s not marriage.
Please see above. Yes, I think we’ve seen this reason before.
Hilarious, Gary. Do you always spend so much time trying to force your religious beliefs upon people you don’t hate? You know, I bet there are people in power in some of the autocratic theocracies in the Middle East who share your viewpoint.
You know, Gary, I couldn’t have asked for more from you. Of your own volition, you’ve provided a perfect example of how libertarianism is just a Trojan horse for many conservatives who are actually quite interested in controlling how others’ live.
@Tom: You said:
No, you may not assume that I disagree with that decision. Why would I want any state to be able to pass a law that violates our Constitution? The states are allowed to set what they want the definition of marriage to be, but in doing so, they cannot violate the Constitution. That is only logical.
Tell me, did you even read the summary of that decision? I am betting you did not.
You also said:
So you are not in favor of the federal government mandating what the definition of marriage is? Great. Good first step there Tom.
@Tom: You said:
Again, why does the homosexual community feel the need to co-opt a religious institution? Civil Unions offer everything that gays are asking for, but yet it isn’t enough. Ever ask yourself why that is? I think it is more about tramping on the rights of others, rather than standing up for what they perceive to be their own trampled rights.
In fact, you touched upon this very idea when you said:
So it is okay for homosexuals to co-opt the religious institution of marriage, but not okay for people to be against it?
Talk about your double standards, there Tom.
Actually, I did. What you may assume was so clear cut was hardly so. The Supreme Court did not find that laws against inter-racial relations violated the 14 amendment in 1883. That decision remained unchallenged for forty years. Feelings and attitudes progress over time. I am hopefully optimistic they will continue to in the case of gay rights as well, despite some peoples’ best efforts.
Wow. Again, where is anyone talking about the religious institution of marriage? There is a civil and legal term “marriage” – that, and only that, are what we are discussing.
Would it be enough for you? You don’t think it would be a tad degrading to have to settle for a ‘separate but equal’ alternative? Do you think girls who grow up to be gay don’t dream about their wedding day too?
You feel that your rights are being tramped because gay people want to be married? How does that work? Furthermore, how does it even affect your life one iota?
TOM, you’r going to far with your comparisons on a multiple of them,
as you repeat,; !!!Do you think THIS, DO you think THAT, and the worse one of it!!! DO you think that girls growing up to be gay, want a wedding too; HEY what answer, are you trying to get out of the CONSERVATIVES on a public post in order to make trash out of it, but they see you coming, and you’r telling on yourself a lot more as you go
@bees – Thanks dear!
You are, as usual spot on in your observations.
@Tom: You said:
So there was no institution of marriage until the United States Federal Government came along?? There may well be a “civil and legal” term called marriage, but where pray tell do you suppose that term was derived from?
You said:
Let’s leave the straw men arguments out of this, okay?
You also said:
Okay, first of all, who in the blue hell said that my rights were being trampled? I sure didn’t. What I am saying is that the gay “rights” people are wanting foist their agenda upon the idea and institution of marriage that has been with mankind for thousands of years. They are saying that because they are different, they want to force the majority of folks to change something.
Come on, you are telling me that you don’t see how that is trying to take the right of the majority to have their religious ceremony their way? And don’t give me that crap about not arguing religion here. Marriage, as recognized by our state and federal governments is based on the religious institution from where it was derived. Freedom of religion was contrived to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. What you are advocating is for the government to stick it’s nose into something that it has no business (as per our Constitution) messing around with.
@Tom:
Just wanted to let you know that I haven’t forgotten about the conversation that we were having here.
I am currently corresponding directly with Dr. Xiridou so that she can provide clarification regarding exactly what her research did, and did not, entail.
@Tom:
Hey Tom….
Dr. Xiridou and I just finished our e-mail conversation regarding her research and the ACS.
I look forward to posting on this thread regarding her response sometime over the next couple of days.
@Aye:
I must admit, I was losing hope in ever hearing back from you. Two weeks? You will, I trust, forgive my lack of faith.
I am quite intrigued to see what you have. You have certainly put a lot of stock in this particular report, its author, and in the FRC as an organization capable of delivering a fair and accurate document adhering rigorously to the scientific method. With the stakes this high, obviously anything less won’t do.
I honor your initiative in reaching out to the good doctor and look forward to seeing the results. It goes without saying that nothing less than the complete unexpurgated version will be acceptable.
I need to refresh myself with the argument, the report “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples” by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., the satellite documentation, and the contents of this thread. I wouldn’t come to a debate with you, Aye, anything less than 100% prepared.
Exit question: Would you happen to know what Dr. Dailey’s Ph.D is in? Psychology, I presume?
@Tom:
I was responding to one of your weird arguments. You said that if I believed in tradition, does that mean I believe that women cannot work outside of the home or have equal rights with men? So, I went to the Bible, one of the most ancient historical documents, which clearly gave property rights to women and recognized that women worked (for instance, the book of Ruth).
I have never claimed to be on the far, far right or a libertarian. I have claimed to be a fundamentalist Christian from time to time.
The idea that Christians desire an American Christian theocracy is absolutely silly. I think you would be hard pressed to find any mainline Christian denominations or organizations who have been petitioning for some sort of American Christian theocracy. However, if you google “Christian theocracy” you will find dozens and dozens of far left wackos who claim this is what believers in Jesus Christ want.
However, on the other hand, our founding fathers were primarily believers in Jesus Christ, when they discussed and debated the Bill of rights, the phrase “separation of church and state” was never used once; and, after writing the Bill of Rights, many of the founding fathers attended church the following Sunday in the House of Congress (which was where church was held for many years). So, many of us would much rather see a government closer to the vision of our founding fathers than as the vision of dishonest liberals.
You listed 4 arguments, and I have only used 1 of those arguments. Again, to the Bible: Moses married a Black woman, so, I would be hard-pressed to beleive in the Bible and yet argue against interracial marriage. Again, I quote the Bible to indicate that there is no reasonable Christian argument that can be raised against a normal male/female marriage between people of any race.
With regards to voting rights, I originally was a stupid liberal from California and I thought it was a great thing, the more people who voted. However, now, when people show up to vote, and many of them voted for Obama because Obama is cool and against McCain because McCain is old; and against Palin because they think she said, “I can see Russia from my house.” (which she did not say; Tina Fey said that). Given those political sensibilities, I am leaning in favor of some kind of a basic test in order to get the right to vote.
And, I fully realize that women will always have the right to vote from hereonin, and I do like women; so, what I said was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Calling a homosexual union a marriage does not make it a marriage. You know that you can have all of your friends call it a marriage, and that you can find a church where the pastor or priest or whatever will pronounce you man and husband (or whatever you want it to be called); so it is not a matter of calling this relationship a marriage that you are after. The end game is going after the children, which homosexuals are doing even today, under the guise of anti-bullying programs. If you get the government to call such a union a marriage–even if you might not be married for more than a few years and even though you both know you will never be sexually faithful to one another–but you are going to use this title as a legal club. Many of us know this. There are a lot of conservatives who don’t, who actually think that a homosexual relationship is just like a hetero one. However, I know better, and many people here know better. And we know, calling you and Harry a married couple is not the end game, any more than legalizing civil unions was the end game. The proclamation of a homosexual marriage is only step one in radically changing America. You will go after the bible as hate literature; you will go after pastors as spreading hate, and you will go after children, teaching them that homosexuality is normal and natural and say, “Hey, kid, maybe you are a homosexual. Only one way you can really find out…” Because a male homosexual wants a lot of partners; that is the end game. Lots and lots of partners. Get a child of age 8 or 10 to question his sexual orientation is exactly what you want. Personally, I don’t want any of these children even thinking about such things.
Nobody is controlling your life. And you can call whatever kind of a relationship you want whatever you want to call it. But you want the federal government to call it “marriage.” THAT is your Trojan horse.
@Gary Kukis:
Interesting, Gary. As an obviously intelligent person, whom i assume has read many biographies about the Founding Fathers, you really believe the founders were Christians in the same way you are? Are you familiar with Jefferson’s Bible? Would you advocate someone taking a scalpel to the Good Book and removing all the ‘supernatural’ aspects from it, removing Christ’s divinity? Would you consider such a person a Christian in the same way you are a Christian? Toll Booth Question: how many times is “God’ motioned in that most holy of secular documents, The Constitution?
Just so I understand what you’re saying (because I’m honestly stunned), you believe the end game of those pushing for homosexual marriage has nothing to do with loving adult relationships; it’s actually some nefarious plot for gays to have access to children, so that gay men can therefore molest them (which converts them??) and have more access to partners through the rape of their own children? And lesbians are just going along with this, what, out of solidarity, having no interest in marriage for themselves? Please elaborate, with your proof please.